Re: isnumeric function

[Pedro Lino]

It is clearly an odd bug 
isnumeric("123E456")  is also True but isnumeric("123DE456")  is False...

Maybe there is a confusion with Hexadecimal numbers? But A,B,C and F is also 
False...

Anyone has a clue?

Regards,
Pedro

On Thursday 23 June 2022 14:26:33 (+01:00), Lucien Mathay wrote:

>
> Le 23/06/22 à 14:53, Dave a écrit :
> > Try =ISNUMBER("123D456") instead of =ISNUMERIC("123D456")
> Thank you and sorry, Dave, I forgot to specify that the question was related 
> to Basic.   (  msgbox ISNUMBER("123C456") sends "Basic error - function not 
> defined" )
>
> In Basic thus,   msgbox isnumeric("123D456")   returns True, although it 
> should return False, if I am not wrong ?
>
> Lucien
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: qa-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: qa-h...@openoffice.apache.org
>
>

-- 
Sent with Vivaldi Mail. Download Vivaldi for free at vivaldi.com

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: qa-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: qa-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: QA Automated Test coverage

[Pedro Lino]

+1
OpenOffice 4 Excellence ;)

Regards,
Pedro

On Sat, Oct 24, 2020 at 9:24 PM Matthias Seidel 
wrote:

> Hi Carl,
>
> a big +1 for automated tests.
>
> I know that there are some, but never executed them myself.
> So I am willing to learn and help to improve our QA.
>
> Regards,
>
>Matthias
>
> Am 24.10.20 um 20:13 schrieb Carl Marcum:
> > Hi All,
> >
> > I've been testing builds with the automated BVT and FVT tests lately.
> > I have a few questions:
> >
> > 1. Is there anything documented about how much coverage these tests
> > provide vs.functionality?
> >
> > 2. Is there yet a place to list new cases it would good to add test for?
> >
> > I think there is a lot that could be done in this area to attract new
> > contributors if we had a place to work from.
> > Both in documenting and work on some flaky tests that I've run into.
> >
> > I'm willing to put some effort into this, both organizing and developing.
> >
> > Slightly off topic is the QA Intro page [1] discusses TestLink which I
> > don't think we use anymore and migrated the tests onto the wiki [2].
> > But this list seems to describe the automated tests. At least some
> > that I've looked at.
> > Manual Tests (it says outdated) are here [3]. Link to the Test Case
> > Management is also a 404.
> >
> > [1] https://openoffice.apache.org/orientation/intro-qa.html
> > [2] https://www.openoffice.org/qa/testcase/ManualTesting/
> > [3] https://www.openoffice.org/qa/testcase/index.html
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Carl
> >
> > -
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: qa-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: qa-h...@openoffice.apache.org
> >
>
>

Re: Bugzilla 4.1.3 RC1

[Pedro Lino]

Hi Andrea

Thank you for the suggestion. I do not have any dev tools.
I found an "easier" way: download the MD5 file and check if it matches the
installer I already have.

I still don't understand why the Revision number on this page (
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/openoffice/) keeps changing if the
files inside it are the same (at least the en_US and pt are the same since
Sep 26th)

In any case this is all very user un-friendly. I know Apache is not used to
having non-technical software like an office suite, but this is really
unmotivating even for users who have some computer knowledge...

Just my 2 cents.

On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 1:58 AM, Andrea Pescetti 
wrote:

> Pedro Lino wrote:
>
>> ​Yes the RC will be the same, but the file creation date and file size
>> will
>> be different. On a FTP server it would be easy to see the new date and
>> only
>> download when there is a new file.
>>
>
> If you have access to command-line tools,
>
> $ svn ls -v https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/openoffice/4.1.3/bina
> ries/it
>
> (example for Italian builds) will give you everything you need, such as:
>
>   15760 arielch 155643543 set 27 16:57 Apache_OpenOffice_4.1.3_Linux_
> x86-64_install-deb_it.tar.gz
>
> Regards,
>   Andrea.
>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: qa-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: qa-h...@openoffice.apache.org
>
>

Re: Bugzilla 4.1.3 RC1

[Pedro Lino]

Hi Ariel

If new Windows install sets are built for
> https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=127140 this won't be a new
> release candidate, because there will be no new source code commit, and
> it affects only Windows; so I guess that the current packages will be
> replaced by the new ones using subversion (also new signatures and
> hashes will mismatch).
>

​Yes the RC will be the same, but the file creation date and file size will
be different. On a FTP server it would be easy to see the new date and only
download when there is a new file.
Example:
http://mirrors.fe.up.pt/pub/apache/openoffice/4.1.2/binaries/en-US/

I really don't understand why there can't be an FTP server for the RC
releases.
 I guess it's one of those Dev only things...
Thank you for trying to provide an alternative!

Regards,
Pedro

Re: Bugzilla 4.1.3 RC1

[Pedro Lino]

Thank you!

Bugs submitted.

Another question/request: since (for some unexplained reason) AOO refuses
to allow FTP servers/listings/downloads, would it be possible for the
download HTML page to show file sizes and dates? It makes it easier to find
the right file and to make sure it is a new build.

Thanks!

On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 12:38 PM, Ariel Constenla-Haile 
wrote:

> Hi Pedro,
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 11:23:10AM +0100, Pedro Lino wrote:
> > Hi all
> >
> > After installing 4.1.3 RC1 under Windows I found some problems but
> Bugzilla
> > does not include Version 4.1.3
> > Can someone please add it in?
>
> There are now:
>
> *  4.1.3-dev for AOO413 branch, what can be downloaded from
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/openoffice/4.1.3/binaries/
> *  4.2.0-dev for trunk, what can be downloaded from
> https://ci.apache.org/projects/openoffice/ and has 4.2.0 on the
> package name
>
> If you don't find 4.1.3-dev, please specify the component (there are
> several, even obsolete components, so I may have missed some).
>
>
> Regards
> --
> Ariel Constenla-Haile
> La Plata, Argentina
>

Bugzilla 4.1.3 RC1

[Pedro Lino]

Hi all

After installing 4.1.3 RC1 under Windows I found some problems but Bugzilla
does not include Version 4.1.3
Can someone please add it in?

Thanks
Pedro

Re: A few issues that need verfication

[Pedro Lino]

Verified and changed status

On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 10:41 PM, Kay Schenk  wrote:

> Hello qa folks --
>
> The following issues that were fixed in the 4.1.2 release are still in
> need of verification -- testing that the "fix" really fixed the issue.
> Please test and change to VERIFIED -- FIXED once you finish your
> testing. From there, we can CLOSE these issues. Thanks.
>
> https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=107619
> https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=125613 (this one needs some
> special attention it seems)
>
>
> --
> 
> Kay Schenk
> Apache OpenOffice
>
> "Things work out best for those who make
>  the best of the way things work out."
>  -- John Wooden
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: qa-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: qa-h...@openoffice.apache.org
>
>

Re: Dailies/Nightlies

[Pedro Lino]

Hi Andrea

On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 7:16 PM, Andrea Pescetti 
wrote:

> On 24/08/2016 Pedro Lino wrote:
>
>> There seems to be a problem updating the html page (at least for the
>> Windows builds)
>> https://ci.apache.org/projects/openoffice/
>> compared to
>> https://ci.apache.org/projects/openoffice/install/win/
>>
>
> I don't see differences, both are the same revision. Remember that there
> are two CI jobs for Windows, the other binaries are at
> https://ci.apache.org/projects/openoffice/install/winsnap/ and that job
> runs less frequently.


​They are matching today. Apparently​ it takes some time (a day?) for the
page to update.


>
>
> Is there any way to have access by ftp to the nightly builds folder?
>> I really would like to see actual file size and date before downloading...
>>
>
> Here you see the file size
> https://ci.apache.org/projects/openoffice/install/win/


​Yes, I know that. I meant the exact size in bytes.


> and here you can match revision and date:
> https://ci.apache.org/builders/aoo-win7
>
>
​Yes, that is a workaround. So the simple answer to ftp is no.

BTW does the daily build mean that the exact same build (1756231) was
compiled 7 days in a row? Isn't that a waste of energy?​

​Regards,
Pedro​

Dailies/Nightlies

[Pedro Lino]

Hi all

I'm glad that Windows nightly builds are working again. Kudos to all that
contributed.

There seems to be a problem updating the html page (at least for the
Windows builds)
https://ci.apache.org/projects/openoffice/
compared to
https://ci.apache.org/projects/openoffice/install/win/

Is there any way to have access by ftp to the nightly builds folder?
I really would like to see actual file size and date before downloading...

Best regards,
Pedro

Re: [TESTING] Applying openoffice-4.1.2-patch1 for Windows

[Pedro Lino]

Hi all


> REQUESTED TESTING
>
>  * [OPTIONAL] If you are able to check any of the .asc,
>.md5, and .sha256 files against the .zip, report any
>difficulties that may have been encountered.
>

​Checked md5 and sha256. No problem.​ Assuming advanced users will be doing
this, they probably have the tools to check. Such tool is not included in
any program included in the Windows OS.


>
>  * If you performed the procedure, report
> * the version of Microsoft Windows and the type of
>   account used (administrator or standard user).
> * report whether the procedure succeeded
> * if the procedure failed or met with difficulties,
>   please summarize the problems and how you over-
>   came any of them
>

​Tested under Windows 7 x64 SP1 using an admin account. Procedure was
successful. I would recommend to rename the file from dll.new to dll in the
unzip folder (step​ 16) and _after_ that copy it to \OpenOffice 4\program\
(step 15)
This allows the file to retain the date. If the file is renamed after
moving to \OpenOffice 4\program\ it will change date/time to the current
date/time.(Obviously the Created date is not modified but from a user
perspective that is not evident)
​Following the​ same logic, it would be wiser to copy tl.dll.old to the
patch folder (or any non-system folder) and if needed rename the file to
tl.dll _before_ copying to \OpenOffice 4\program\ when reverting the patch.


>
>  * [IMPORTANT] Identify any missing, incomplete or
>confusing information in the README.  Describe what you
>see as important improvements before making general
>release of the procedure for use by non-expert users of
>Apache OpenOffice on Windows.
>

​There are some typos (and a confusing sentence) in the readme file. Please
check the attached ODT (created with the patched AOO)​

Hope this helps,
Pedro


README-4.1.2-patch1-apply-Windows.txt_RecordedChanges.odt
Description: application/vnd.oasis.opendocument.text

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: qa-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: qa-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: Can we add the value "N/A" to the Target Milestone field

[Pedro Lino]

> It seems to me that RESOLVED - RESOLVED is too mysterious and RESOLVED
>>> - NOTOURBUG is not much better than NOTANISSUE.
>>>
>>> RESOLVED - HANDLED might be closer, with the comment that achieves
>>> this explains how it is handled. (I.e., documentation, workaround,
>>> whatever.)
>>>
>>> I'm not in love with that term and don't know how it works for
>>> non-native English-language participants.
>>>
>>
>> I like it as it is more general. However, what about RESOLVED - MANAGED?
>> This word is maybe better known in the world. This term shows that the
>> issue has some work in it and was tackled. With a closing comment you
>> can see where and why it was successful managed (resolved).
>>
>
> from Jira I also know that RESOLVED - DONE is a common way to say that an
> issue was successfully resolved.
>

NOT_AN_ISSUE seems a bad option. The problem which is affecting someone is
dismissed. In my opinion it is as as offensive as WORKSFORME (used in
LibreOffice) and WONT_FIX (used in both projects)

HANDLED, MANAGED only applies if there are workarounds (which is not always
the case).

NOTOURBUG means that the Devs looked at it and although they recognize it's
a problem, there is nothing they can do because the problem is somewhere
else.
I agree it's a but short and rough but it's difficult to be nice and
meaningful with a single word (or glued words). This can be further
explained in the Comments when changing status if the developer is in such
a mood...

NOTABUG could be used instead of WONT_FIX (when it's reported as a bug but
AOO decides it is working as expected) and DECLINED when it's a
suggestion/enhancement (and AOO decides it is not interesting/productive)

Just my 2 cents ;)

Re: Can we add the value "N/A" to the Target Milestone field

[Pedro Lino]

> It's not about to draw the line between issues that are resolved and
> verified solutions. It's about to differentiate issues that are in the real
> application and therefore need to be fixed in the source code. Here we use
> (or better should use) RESOLVED - FIXED.
>
> But what about issues that are also reporting a problem but the solution
> (if there is any) is somewhere else? RESOLVED - FIXED doesn't fit, RESOLVED
> - NOT_AN_ISSUE also not.
>

Why not use the same nomenclature as the "sibling project"? RESOLVED -
NOTOURBUG

I believe Apache QA needs a flowchart such as
https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/images/c/c4/Unconfirmed_Bugs_Status_Flowchart_Version_0.1.pdf
https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/images/c/cb/Unconfirmed_Bugs_Status_Flowchart.odg

Re: Can we add the value "N/A" to the Target Milestone field

[Pedro Lino]

On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 10:32 PM, Marcus  wrote:

> Am 03/21/2016 10:36 PM, schrieb Kay Schenk:
>
>> [top posting]
>>
>> Thanks for all the help with this and for the new NONE for
>> target release. Hopefully, it will be used sparingly
>> assuming we us e RESOLVED-FIXED as only for issues in which
>> an actual commit is used. Issue 126828 has now been changed
>> to UNCONFIRMED. How to differentiate UNCONFIRMED from
>> RESOLVED--NOT AN ISSUE will be a challenge. Hopefully, this
>> can be clarified to our QA helpers
>>
>
> I repeat my suggestion for another resolution status as it maybe got lost
> in people's inboxes.
>
> My suggestion is to create a RESOLVED - RESOLVED status. Maybe still to
> close to RESOLVED - FIXED, but then let's see if there are better wordings.
>

There is already a final status after RESOLVED - FIXED. It's VERIFIED -
FIXED. It is set after a QA member verifies that the fix actually solved
the problem and that it does not occur in the RC.

Hope this helps.

Daily/Nightly builds for Windows?

[Pedro Lino]

Hi all

Now that 4.1.2 is out and development is again active, I believe it would
be good to have the Apache OpenOffice buildbots releasing daily binaries
for Windows as well?

This has been broken long before the 4.1.2 RC stage but maybe now someone
could give some love to the buildbot?

With nearly 1 million downloads per day for the Windows platform alone, I
believe that it would make sense to make sure that AOO is improved and that
any regressions are detected early.

Best regards,
Pedro

Re: Release status - Please test OpenOffice 4.1.2-RC2

[Pedro Lino]

Hi Andrea, all

One quick question: why do all the exe files in AOO 4.1.2 have version
number 4.0.9780.500? (they were 4.0.9774.500 in AOO 4.1.1)

Shouldn't it be at least 4.1.9870.500 (so that it matches the 4.1 branch)?
Or better yet 4.1.2.9870.500 (so that users could ignore the exact build
but still know which version the file belongs to)?

Regards,
Pedro

On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 12:33 PM, Pedro Lino  wrote:

>
>
> On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 11:43 AM, Andrea Pescetti 
> wrote:
>
>> Pedro Lino wrote:
>>
>>> the second line in the AOO About box (apparently
>>> only under Windows) is the date in two different formats but fails to
>>> report what the platform is (which version of Windows and if the OS is 32
>>> or 64 bits).
>>>
>>
>> This is still on the build side. I mean, mine says Linux 64-bit since it
>> was BUILT for Linux 64-bit. It doesn't extract information from the real
>> environment where you are running it. And since we only distribute one
>> Windows version, the most we could get there is the generic "Windows"
>> string.
>>
>
> Yes, you are correct. That should be enough. I realized later that I was
> mixing concepts.
>
> Regards,
> Pedro
>

Re: Release status - Please test OpenOffice 4.1.2-RC2

[Pedro Lino]

On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 11:43 AM, Andrea Pescetti 
wrote:

> Pedro Lino wrote:
>
>> the second line in the AOO About box (apparently
>> only under Windows) is the date in two different formats but fails to
>> report what the platform is (which version of Windows and if the OS is 32
>> or 64 bits).
>>
>
> This is still on the build side. I mean, mine says Linux 64-bit since it
> was BUILT for Linux 64-bit. It doesn't extract information from the real
> environment where you are running it. And since we only distribute one
> Windows version, the most we could get there is the generic "Windows"
> string.
>

Yes, you are correct. That should be enough. I realized later that I was
mixing concepts.

Regards,
Pedro

Re: Release status - Please test OpenOffice 4.1.2-RC2

[Pedro Lino]

On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 8:47 AM, Andrea Pescetti 
wrote:

> On 18/10/2015 Pedro Lino wrote:
>
>> RC1 was
>> AOO412m1(Build:9780)  -  Rev. 1705625
>> 2015-09-28 12:45:04 (Mo, 28 Sep 2015)
>>
>> and RC2 is
>> AOO412m2(Build:9781)  -  Rev. 1707648
>> 2015-09-28 12:45:04 (Mo, 28 Sep 2015)
>>
>> The date/time is the same. Is this expected or is it a Bug?
>>
>
> It isn't expected. So it's a bug, thank you. Not a real bug in the code
> since it depends on the build environment, but we may want to recheck it
> for the RC3 build. In my system it is correct:
>
> AOO412m2(Build:9781)  -  Rev. 1707648
> 2015-10-09 09:35 - Linux x86_64
>
> Are you using the Windows build? Since this depends on the build
> environment, it is system-specific.


Yes, I am. In fact I believe that is another bug/missing feature. It
doesn't make sense that the second line in the AOO About box (apparently
only under Windows) is the date in two different formats but fails to
report what the platform is (which version of Windows and if the OS is 32
or 64 bits).

The fact that the About information misses this information forces people
(particularly in QA) to have to ask when it should be obvious (in fact it
is obvious in the information you pasted from Linux)

Regards,
Pedro

Re: Release status - Please test OpenOffice 4.1.2-RC2

[Pedro Lino]

One question:

RC1 was

AOO412m1(Build:9780)  -  Rev. 1705625
2015-09-28 12:45:04 (Mo, 28 Sep 2015)

and RC2 is

AOO412m2(Build:9781)  -  Rev. 1707648
2015-09-28 12:45:04 (Mo, 28 Sep 2015)

The date/time is the same. Is this expected or is it a Bug?

Regards,
Pedro


On Sat, Oct 17, 2015 at 11:42 PM, Andrea Pescetti 
wrote:

> Hemu Hemendra wrote:
>
>> how to download latest version , i found some bugs
>> in previous versions. can it be resolved in upcoming versions.
>>
>
> The latest version (to be used for tests) is available at
>
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/openoffice/4.1.2-rc2-r1707648/binaries/
> (English for Windows:
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/openoffice/4.1.2-rc2-r1707648/binaries/en-US/Apache_OpenOffice_4.1.2_Win_x86_install_en-US.exe
> ).
>
> Remaining tests to be done are listed at http://s.apache.org/KL1 and most
> of them now contain a simple explanation of what is needed to test.
>
> Regards,
>   Andrea.
>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: qa-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: qa-h...@openoffice.apache.org
>
>

Re: Release status - Please test OpenOffice 4.1.2-RC2

[Pedro Lino]

Hi all

Bugs marked as RESOLVED FIXED must be set to VERIFIED or REOPENED. Note
> that many are still in RESOLVED FIXED state but have indeed been
> verified if you read the issue. In that case it is enough to change the
> issue status, but an extra verification is always helpful.
>
>
I have Verified several Fixed bugs but only in Comments since I don't
have permission to change Status.

Do I need a special permission from someone or this is a bug in bugzilla?

Regards,
Pedro

Re: OpenOffice 4.1.2-RC2 available (and happy birthday!)

[Pedro Lino]

Hi Andrea, all

I just installed RC2 and noticed that it is not bundled with the latest
version of the dictionaries (English and Portuguese at least).
If I check for Extension Updates the latest version is available for
update.

The installer should include the latest version of bundled extensions.

Cheers,
Pedro


On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 1:39 AM, Andrea Pescetti 
wrote:

> As a small gift for the 15 years of OpenOffice (OpenOffice was released as
> Open Source on 13 October 2000, as Louis reminded us during ApacheCon
> Budapest), we now have OpenOffice 4.1.2-RC2 available.
>
> OpenOffice 4.1.2-RC1 has been tested for more than a week without major
> bugs or regressions reported. Almost all relevant issues were tested and
> verified fixed, even though we still need help with some.
>
> Note that, since there is still some delay for building and uploading, RC2
> is current as of revision 1707648 (last accepted commit, see
> https://svn.apache.org/viewvc/openoffice/tags/ for the SNAPSHOT change),
> so 4 days ago.
>
> A few reported bugs on RC1:
> - RC1 was missing Linux 64-bit DEB packages and had some incorrect scripts
> for source checksums; these are now fixed.
> - https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=126305 additional patches
> were needed, these are in RC2
> - Windows installation: a user reported "Installation aborted with the
> message that I lack access to registry". See http://s.apache.org/Z6v and
> https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=126587 ; RC2 should not have
> any changes in this respect, but possibly Windows users can
> explain/check/guide.
> - https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=107619 is not completely
> solved, a fix came when RC2 was already being prepared and it is not
> included
> - Several release blockers were addressed (Bugzilla link below)
>
> RC2 can be downloaded from
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/openoffice/
> open "binaries", then the language code, then you will find installers. If
> you can't download it now, it means it is still synchronizing, try again in
> a few hours.
>
> For QA, the link to use for verifying "release blocker" bugfixes is this
> one (you will need a Bugzilla account to see it and to verify bugfixes):
>
> https://bz.apache.org/ooo/buglist.cgi?cmdtype=dorem&list_id=170710&namedcmd=4.1.2_approved_and_fixed&remaction=run&sharer_id=7
>
> Only the issues marked as RESOLVED FIXED are still to be checked. If you
> verify that everything works as expected, please mark the issue as VERIFIED
> FIXED (or post a comment, specifying your Operating System and language).
> It is fine and useful to have two independent verifications of a bug,
> especially on two different operating systems.
>
> Remember: testing is important since 4.1.2-RC2 can be a release we
> actually vote upon. We are seeing a few release blocker requests coming in
> but I'll wait that everything is properly tested before seeing whether this
> deserves a RC3. So if you didn't test RC1, please test RC2; you can
> actually use it for day-to-day tasks too for a few days, for more realistic
> testing.
>
> Replies to the QA list only, if possible, thanks.
>
> Regards,
>   Andrea.
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: qa-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: qa-h...@openoffice.apache.org
>
>

Re: FW: DChanges 2014 Papers and ODF Conformance/Compliance Assurance

[Pedro Lino]

Good morning Dennis

I have no idea how I received this email since it did not arrive to the QA
mailing list (and I'm subscribed in no-mail mode).

However I'm glad it did because Open Document compatibility and round trip
problems (between Open Source and proprietary) are an issue that I'm daily
confronted with.

Just yesterday I submitted a bug that seems to have always been present in
LibreOffice (and possible OpenOffice.org and Apache OpenOffice) where there
is loss of track changes information if the document received is in DOC
format. I haven't tested yet what happens with an ODT (because I don't have
MS Office 2013 and going back to ODT1.1 doesn't make much sense)

https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=91862

Kind regards,
Pedro


On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 at 1:01 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton 
wrote:

> In the activities referenced in this note, the contribution of a coherent
> QA process is critical.  It is important for the formulation of tests, for
> the application of assessment procedures, and for the addition of tests
> found necessary as the result of incident reports and other cases found not
> covered by an evolving suite of tests.
>
>  - Dennis
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Dennis E. Hamilton [mailto:dennis.hamil...@acm.org]
> Sent: Thursday, June 4, 2015 16:24
> To: d...@openoffice.apache.org
> Subject: DChanges 2014 Papers and ODF Conformance/Compliance Assurance
>
> I took advantage of Corinthia as a place to build up materials on ODF
> Conformance/Compliance Assurance testing of software products, since
> creating profiles of feature compliance figures in the scope of the Apache
> Corinthia (incubating) project.
>
> The material is relevant, of course, to Apache OpenOffice and other
> implementations of ODF.
>
> The proposed structure for development of files, procedures, and
> assessments is at <
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/Corinthia/ODF>.
>
> I have updated the ODF Conformance/Compliance Assurance Helix sketch
> there.  The connected treatment of ODF 1.2 Conformance that has been linked
> from that sketch has also been updated.  That overview is at <
> http://nfoworks.org/notes/2014/06/n140602.htm> and a trial diagram of the
> different conformance layers is at <
> http://nfoworks.org/notes/2014/06/n140602b.htm>.
>
> I am starting to put more effort into this material, including coming up
> with minimal test cases as baby steps.
>
> My papers from DChanges 2014 are also relevant to this effort.  Although
> the "Anti-Pattern" paper is about repairing change-tracking, a key
> conclusion is that one can't achieve an envelope within which interoperable
> interchange of changed-tracked documents is possible without have a
> surrounding envelope in which there is reliable interchange without any
> change tracking.  The "Anti-Pattern" paper provides a sketch of how one can
> establish that, and some principles that must be honored.
>
> I have not put authors versions of my DChanges 2014 papers on-line yet.  I
> will do so in the coming week.
>
>  - Dennis
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Dennis E. Hamilton [mailto:dennis.hamil...@acm.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2015 10:50
> To: d...@corinthia.incubator.apache.org
> Subject: DChanges 2014 Papers Available
>
> The final versions of papers on change-tracking from DChanges2014 have
> been published.  You can see the table of contents of the proceedings at <
> http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2723147> by selecting to see the "Table
> of Contents."
>
> [ ... ]
>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: qa-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: qa-h...@openoffice.apache.org
>
>

Re: [CODE] old business...patches

[Pedro Lino]

Well spotted by Regina.

The correct link is

https://issues.apache.org/ooo/buglist.cgi?cmdtype=dorem&list_id=162913&namedcmd=PATCHES&remaction=run&sharer_id=7

Regards,
Pedro

On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 2:11 PM, Regina Henschel 
wrote:

> Kay Schenk schrieb:
>
>> The following query lists issues of type = PATCH
>>
>> https://issues.apache.org/ooo/buglist.cgi?cmdtype=runnamed&;
>> list_id=162879&namedcmd=PATCHES
>>
>> You will need to be a registered Bugzilla user to view it.
>>
>> It would be helpful for QA and dev team members to determine if the
>> submitted patches are still relevant. Bulk notification may not have
>> reached patch contributors.
>>
>>
>>
> The link does not work for me. But go to your Preferences and there to the
> tab "Saved Searches". In the lower part you will find the search "PATCHES"
> and can run it.
>
> Kind regards
> Regina
>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: qa-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: qa-h...@openoffice.apache.org
>
>

Re: No daily builds

[Pedro Lino]

Thank you, Regina.

I didn't realize that the files were updated and uploaded to the usual
place and that it was simply the page I mentioned that wasn't being updated
with the correct information and link.

Kind regards,
Pedro

On Sun, Nov 2, 2014 at 10:50 AM, Regina Henschel 
wrote:

> Hi Pedro,
>
> Pedro Lino schrieb:
>
>> Thank you for the quick answer
>> I can't find any download links...
>> Am I missing something?
>>
>
>
> http://ci.apache.org/projects/openoffice/install/
>
> Kind regards
> Regina
>
>
>
>> On Sat, Nov 1, 2014 at 5:28 PM, Kay Schenk  wrote:
>>
>>  On Sat, Nov 1, 2014 at 8:10 AM, Pedro Lino  wrote:
>>>
>>>  Hi all
>>>>
>>>> In case no one has noticed there haven't been any daily builds since Oct
>>>> 18th (and as far as Oct 6th for 32 bit Linux).
>>>>
>>>> http://ci.apache.org/projects/openoffice/
>>>>
>>>> Best regards,
>>>> Pedro
>>>>
>>>>
>>> There daily builds are actually still functioning -- see
>>>
>>> http://ci.apache.org/builders/aoo-win7
>>> http://ci.apache.org/builders/openoffice-linux32-nightly
>>> http://ci.apache.org/builders/openoffice-linux64-nightly
>>>
>>> but the main output display page that you reference is not being updated.
>>> We are investigating the cause.
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> 
>>> -
>>> MzK
>>>
>>> "One must still have chaos in oneself to be able to give birth
>>>   to a dancing star."
>>>   -- Friedrich Nietzsche
>>>
>>>
>>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: qa-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: qa-h...@openoffice.apache.org
>
>

Re: No daily builds

[Pedro Lino]

Thank you for the quick answer
I can't find any download links...
Am I missing something?

On Sat, Nov 1, 2014 at 5:28 PM, Kay Schenk  wrote:

> On Sat, Nov 1, 2014 at 8:10 AM, Pedro Lino  wrote:
>
> > Hi all
> >
> > In case no one has noticed there haven't been any daily builds since Oct
> > 18th (and as far as Oct 6th for 32 bit Linux).
> >
> > http://ci.apache.org/projects/openoffice/
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Pedro
> >
>
> There daily builds are actually still functioning -- see
>
> http://ci.apache.org/builders/aoo-win7
> http://ci.apache.org/builders/openoffice-linux32-nightly
> http://ci.apache.org/builders/openoffice-linux64-nightly
>
> but the main output display page that you reference is not being updated.
> We are investigating the cause.
>
>
> --
>
> -
> MzK
>
> "One must still have chaos in oneself to be able to give birth
>  to a dancing star."
>  -- Friedrich Nietzsche
>

No daily builds

[Pedro Lino]

Hi all

In case no one has noticed there haven't been any daily builds since Oct
18th (and as far as Oct 6th for 32 bit Linux).

http://ci.apache.org/projects/openoffice/

Best regards,
Pedro

Re: Hybrid PDF

[Pedro Lino]

Hi Ariel, all


On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 2:59 PM, Ariel Constenla-Haile 
wrote:


> This was a change introduced in AOO4. The idea behind was to open the
> possibility to develop the Hybrid-PDF import independently from the PDF
> import, be it by any third party as an extension or even by this project
> as a core import filter.
>

I believe that this is an important feature. Actually the Hybrid PDF needs
a better solution than Export to PDF. It isn't user friendly that you need
to remember to Export to PDF instead of Save when you do modifications to
the file (and that you should NOT save the document at the end of the
session if you don't want an extra file with the same content).

 The code of the extension was donated by Oracle to the ASF, it is
> located in
> https://svn.apache.org/viewvc/openoffice/trunk/main/sdext/source/pdfimport/
> but the extension depends on an external library to read the PDF, and
> this library cannot be included in OpenOffice due to its license
> http://www.foolabs.com/xpdf/about.html "Distribution conditions"
>

Thank you for the explanation. Those are bad news for AOO...

In any case I submitted a bug about the crashing problem. I just found out
that opening any PDF will crash AOO 4.2 if the PDF Import extension is not
installed so there is no need to provide a sample hybrid file

https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=125766

Regards,
Pedro

Re: Hybrid PDF

[Pedro Lino]

On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 10:30 AM, Andrea Pescetti 
wrote:


>  I still think that it doesn't make sense that this is an optional
>> download.
>> If creating a Hybrid PDF is a feature included in AOO what is the sense
>> that trying to reopen the file you just created will show you an Import
>> ASCII dialog?
>>
>
> Without the extension OpenOffice cannot create or open hybrid PDFs. With
> the extension it can do both.
>

I'm sorry but you are mistaken. You can create Hybrid PDFs with a standard
AOO install (just go to Export as PDF, anc check the last option Embed this
document inside the PDF)

However you can not open the file you just created without installing the
optional extension...



>
>  But what I really hope is that the extension will be included in the next
>> release, which would solve the bug and improve AOO ;)
>>
>
> There are restrictions to what we can do with that extension due to
> problematic licensing of some libraries it uses. So the reason for not
> including it in OpenOffice is legal (or better: checks to make on the legal
> side) rather than technical. OpenOffice is extremely careful about
> licensing.


I am well aware of that. But since Oracle kindly donated the OpenOffice
source code to Apache, wouldn't they be willing to ease up on the license
for the PDF importer since it makes hybrid pdf editing impossible without
the optional extension?
In fact what AOO needs is Ariel's extension, not Oracle's...

Regards,
Pedro

Re: Hybrid PDF

[Pedro Lino]

Hi Andrea, all


 Let me understand: are you installing on OpenOffice 4.x this extension
>
> which is named "Oracle PDF Import Extension (for OpenOffice 3.x)" instead
> of this one



> (linked from the page above as the version to use for OpenOffice 4.x):
>

Yes, I did. My bad for not noticing the link to the new version.
Unfortunately searching for "PDF import" always returns the Oracle
extension first (although the new one also shows up)
I assumed (wrongly) that there wasn't a newer version. I think it should be
given more highlight.


>
>  I think that the loss of hybrid PDF editing is a real regression for AOO
>>
>
> Please check with the right version and report the regressions you find.
> It's still good to know.
>

It works perfectly! Sorry about the noise.

I still think that it doesn't make sense that this is an optional download.
If creating a Hybrid PDF is a feature included in AOO what is the sense
that trying to reopen the file you just created will show you an Import
ASCII dialog?


>
>  Furthermore, opening a PDF in AOO 4.0 or 4.1 tries to convert the document
>> from ASCII (which makes sense) but immediately crashes AOO 4.2
>>
>
> Anything that crashes OpenOffice (even if you open a totally random
> sequence of bytes named "test.odt") is an OpenOffice bug. So if you have a
> file (of whatever type) that crashes OpenOffice 4.2-dev (especially if no
> extensions are installed), please open an issue, attach the file there and
> send the link here.
>

I have an Hybrid PDF that crashes AOO 4.2 every time when the file is
opened/dropped
However this does not happen if the PDF import extension is installed.

I can report the bug at Issuezilla
But what I really hope is that the extension will be included in the next
release, which would solve the bug and improve AOO ;)

Regards,
Pedro

Hybrid PDF

[Pedro Lino]

Hi all

I have an issue for QA/dev:

Currently the PDF import (created by Oracle) can not be installed under AOO
4.x (it works correctly with AOO 3.4.0)

This makes creation of hybrid PDFs pointless because they can not be edited
again in AOO (although they work perfectly in LO where the ODF import
function is now integrated instead of an optional extension, which IMO
makes a LOT of sense)

Furthermore, opening a PDF in AOO 4.0 or 4.1 tries to convert the document
from ASCII (which makes sense) but immediately crashes AOO 4.2

I have not submitted a bug report to Issuezilla because I know it will be
ignored or dismissed as NOT OUR BUG since the PDF Import extension is
technically not Apache's problem.

I think that the loss of hybrid PDF editing is a real regression for AOO

I hope someone can pick up on this issue.

Regards,
Pedro

Re: Progress and Quality

[Pedro Lino]

Hi Rob


> You are focusing on security and exploits (which is obviously a very
> > important area). But I was thinking more in terms of program stability
> > *during* usage. I assume that Coverity's "project's defect density" would
> > reflect this?
> >
>
> The correlation is not clear.  I'd note, for example, that the Swiss
> Supreme Court gave a presentation recently where they said they prefer
> Apache OpenOffice over LibreOffice because of the greater stability of
> AOO.
>

I do too. That is why I'm curious about this.


> If I had to guess, what is probably true is that defect density in
> newly written code is correlated to real-world quality, as seen by
> users.   But 10-year old code?   Over a long period of time serious
> bugs of this kind -- crash bugs and other instability issues -- tend
> to be identified by users and are either fixed or at least well-known.
> We're unlikely to find new serious instabilities by examining ancient
> code.
>

Fair enough. That is mostly true for repeatable bugs. My expectation was
that this kind of analysis would spot those hard to find bugs that cause
unreproducible crashes...


> > So I would be more interested in running a debug build that could log
> these
> > occasional crashes (if they are not occasional and I can replicate them,
> I
> > create a regular Issuezilla bug report).
> >
>
> What OS are you running on?
>

Windows (XP Pro x86 and 7 Pro x64)

Regards,
Pedro

Re: Progress and Quality

[Pedro Lino]

Hi Rob


Our main focus for finding latent security flaws has been via
> "document fuzzing."  It is more complicated to set up than just
> running a static analysis tool but since it involves probing the
> actual running code it is more effective in many ways.  Historically
> this is one of the primary ways that editors like OpenOffice are
> exploited.Also, when security researches report security flaws to
> us, they are often flaws found from fuzzing.   I don't recall ever
> seeing a report that was derived from static analysis.
>

You are focusing on security and exploits (which is obviously a very
important area). But I was thinking more in terms of program stability
*during* usage. I assume that Coverity's "project's defect density" would
reflect this?



> If you want to read more about what we're doing with fuzzing you can
> see my presentation from ApacheCon:
> http://www.robweir.com/blog/publications/AOOFuzzing.pdf
>
> Also, if you are really interested in this area I can help you set up
> a fuzzing environment.  It works best if you have a machine (or a VM)
> your can dedicate to it for a couple of weeks .
>

Very interesting stuff. Actually the few times I had any problem with AOO
usage was not while opening files. They happen during regular work sessions
where Calc/Writer/Impress would freeze completely and leave no other choice
other than killing soffice (with consequent data loss)

So I would be more interested in running a debug build that could log these
occasional crashes (if they are not occasional and I can replicate them, I
create a regular Issuezilla bug report).

Regards,
Pedro

Re: Progress and Quality

[Pedro Lino]

Hi Ariel

Actually, the problem is that there isn't so many people participating
> in coding.


Unfortunately that is what I figured...


> Cloning http://git.apache.org/openoffice.git and running the
> commands at the bottom of this message, gives of good overview of
> code-contribution (as it does not include the websites).


Ok. But the results would basically be the same. So the SVN activity
(excluding website) is a good way to check for updates to the code.


> The answer to
> your question might be that people at Hamburg are on Holidays.
>

That would seem to be the major explanation.

Thank you for the honest answer ;)

Regards,
Pedro

Re: Progress and Quality

[Pedro Lino]

Hi Andrea


Thank you for the quick answer.

 I'm wondering if I'm missing something or development really stopped/slowed
>> down since the 4.1.1 release?
>>
>
> I can't speak for the others. But since the latest visible commit is mine,
> I've been working more on the website in recent days.
>

Actually my question was more in the sense "Am I looking at the right
statistics?" because I find it hard to believe that with so much to be done
and so many people participating, there hasn't been a code change in 7
days...


>
>  On a separate note, from a Quality perspective it would probably would be
>> a
>> good idea if Apache OpenOffice code was scanned by one of these Coverity
>> analysis
>>
>
> The Apache OpenOffice code is scanned by Coverity, and (since this is
> considered security-relevant) data are privately accessible to some
> developers.


Is it possible to make public the "project's defect density" for Apache
OpenOffice? I'm quite curious since I find AOO more stable than LO.



> If I recall correctly (I've never seen them), most of the reports and
> metrics did not seem very useful, since they included a lot of false
> positives; one could silence those warnings by writing extra code or extra
> assertions just to help the analyzer understand that nothing was wrong, but
> this would be merely to please the analyzer and not to enhance the real
> quality.


That makes sense. But there are possibly some real leaks and bugs that
could be attended...


> I haven't read the article you linked to yet, but if your point was
> "Coverity should scan Apache OpenOffice" the answer is "This is already
> happening".
>

Actually I meant some sort of scan, but since AOO is also scanned by
Coverity then it would be interesting to know how the two compare.

Regards,
Pedro

Progress and Quality

[Pedro Lino]

Hi all QAers

I'm wondering if I'm missing something or development really stopped/slowed
down since the 4.1.1 release? (according to this site
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/openoffice/trunk/main/?sortby=date the last
modification was *r1623850* on Tue Sep 9 15:35:43 2014 UTC)

On a separate note, from a Quality perspective it would probably would be a
good idea if Apache OpenOffice code was scanned by one of these Coverity
analysis
http://www.newswire.ca/en/story/1411430/libreoffice-makes-strides-in-software-quality-with-coverity-scan

Kind regards,
Pedro

Please update Sourceforge

[Pedro Lino]

Hi all

In case no one has noticed, the latest version offered by Sourceforge is
still 4.1.0

http://sourceforge.net/projects/openofficeorg.mirror/files/

Looking for the latest version?

* Download Apache_OpenOffice_4.1.0_Win_x86_install_en-US.exe (140.9 MB)
*
In fact, if you click on the big Download button in the project's homepage

http://sourceforge.net/projects/openofficeorg.mirror/

that is the version you will get because it is still the default
 *

*

Regards,
Pedro

Re: Full Installation vs. Language Pack

[Pedro Lino]

Hi Andrea

Thank you for the quick answer!

I think the sentence should be rewritten to something like

Currently dictionaries are not included in language packs, only in full
installations. This limitation is a technical issue (to be fixed as soon as
possible) which requires users who install language packs to take an extra
step to manually download the matching dictionary from the
Extensions website (hosted by Sourceforge.net).
Dictionaries get improved independent of the release schedule of OpenOffice
and are offered separately. They can be updated at any time when new
versions are released.

(some links could be added, namely to the Extensions site)


>  I hope this is just some confusion and that in the next version the
>> Dictionaries are also included in the Language packs (and the help page is
>> corrected)
>>
>
> That's the aim. For sure, once the bug is fixed, we have no policy
> obstacles. We just need someone to take care of this bug!
> https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=124473
>
>
I'm glad this was indeed a confusion. I sincerely hope that someone with
the needed skills does take on that task... Unfortunately I'm not able to
help with solving this problem.

Kind regards,
Pedro

Full Installation vs. Language Pack

[Pedro Lino]

Hi all

I arrived at this page
http://www.openoffice.org/download/full_vs_lp.html
from the Help link in the Download page.

This explanation

"Since OpenOffice 3.4.0 dictionaries are no longer included in language
packs, only in full installations. Dictionaries are not part of the
OpenOffice project but stored on the extensions website (hosted by
Sourceforge.net). They get improved independent of the release schedule of
OpenOffice and are offered separately. They can be updated at any time when
new versions are released."

does not make *any* sense. Dictionaries are allowed to be included in the
Full Install but not on the Language packs because they "are not part of
the OpenOffice project"???

Is it just me who sees a double standard here?

If they are NOT part of the Project then NONE of them can be included with
the Full Install...

I think Apache needs to make this license problem clear...

I hope this is just some confusion and that in the next version the
Dictionaries are also included in the Language packs (and the help page is
corrected)

Just my 2 confused cents...

Re: [RELEASE]: RC2 due to dictionary updates

[Pedro Lino]

Hi Andrea, Juergen, all

Just installed the Portuguese RC2. I can confirm that the dictionary
included is indeed the latest uploaded by the Extension's author.

Thank you!


On Sat, Aug 9, 2014 at 2:16 PM, Andrea Pescetti  wrote:

> On 08/08/2014 Pedro Lino wrote:
>
>> Done. The latest version was uploaded to sourceforge by the author.
>> Thank you for waiting for this detail to be solved.
>>
>
> Now updated in trunk and AOO410 (so the Portuguese dictionary will be OK
> in the next snapshot):
> https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=125262
>
>
> Regards,
>   Andrea.
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: qa-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: qa-h...@openoffice.apache.org
>
>

Re: [RELEASE]: propose RC2 on revision 1616946

[Pedro Lino]

Hi Juergen, all

Build 1616946 is already available from the Nightly page.

I assume this is *exactly* the same (AOO411m5(Build:9757)  -  Rev. 1616946)
as the one you are building now and therefore testers who have installed
the Nightly have no need to download the en_US (or de) version again?

Pedro

Re: [RELEASE]: RC2 due to dictionary updates

[Pedro Lino]

Hi Juergen, Andrea

On Fri, Aug 8, 2014 at 7:17 AM, Jürgen Schmidt 
wrote:

> On 07/08/14 18:05, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
> > To fix this, they must upload
> > a version with a higher number that is internally hosted (on
> > extensions.openoffice.org). Otherwise, it will happen that OpenOffice
> > reports an available update upon install. The latest version appearing
> > at http://sourceforge.net/projects/aoo-extensions/files/1196/ is the one
> > that will be included.
>
> Andrea is correct, we prefer a hosted version in the extensions repo for
> the reasons Andrea pointed out. I will wait until Monday to see if we
> can get an uploaded version on the extensions side. Otherwise I will
> start the build on Monday with what we have.
>

Done. The latest version was uploaded to sourceforge by the author.

Thank you for waiting for this detail to be solved.

Kind regards,
Pedro

Re: [RELEASE]: RC2 due to dictionary updates

[Pedro Lino]

Hi Juergen


On Thu, Aug 7, 2014 at 3:16 PM, Jürgen Schmidt 
wrote:

> On 07/08/14 15:22, Pedro Lino wrote:
> > Would it still be possible to include that version in RC2 if they update
> it
> > at the Extensions site?
>
> yes, but it have to be done immediately. Can you ask them and can keep
> me informed? If possible I would like to build tomorrow and start the
> upload before the weekend.
>

Done. I asked, and he kindly updated.
It's available at the Extension's own page
http://extensions.openoffice.org/en/project/ptPTdict

Looking forward to RC2

Kind regards,
Pedro

Re: [RELEASE]: RC2 due to dictionary updates

[Pedro Lino]

Hi again

I just noticed that the latest version available from the people creating
the extension is in fact 14.7.4.2 from July 8th
http://natura.di.uminho.pt/download/sources/Dictionaries/openoffice/Pos-AO/

Would it still be possible to include that version in RC2 if they update it
at the Extensions site?

Regards,
Pedro

On Thu, Aug 7, 2014 at 11:36 AM, Pedro Lino  wrote:

> Hi Juergen, all
>
> I just uninstalled my Portuguese dictionary (version 14.4.1.1) just to
> test the Extension updates (and Dictionaries in particular since that is
> the reason for the new RC2).
>
> Then I installed a previous version (13.1.1.2). When I pressed "Check for
> Updates" I got a message that 14.4.1.1 was available. However the latest
> official version on the Extensions site is 14.7.4.1 (from July 4th)
>
> http://extensions.services.openoffice.org/en/project/european-portuguese-dictionaries
>
> Why is this version not reported by the extensions update check?
> Will version 14.7.4.1 be included in the forthcoming RC2?
>
> Regards,
> Pedro
>
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 5, 2014 at 9:58 AM, Jürgen Schmidt 
> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> maybe some of you wondered why I haven't started the vote on RC1 but the
>> reason is quite simple. Just when the upload was nearly finished I got
>> notification of available updates (thanks to Regina and Ariel) of
>> dictionaries. We know this is very annoying when you install a new
>> version and get update notification directly.
>>
>> That means we will definitely prepare a RC2 and if you have identified
>> further critical and potential showstopper please report them asap.
>>
>> I plan to start the build later this week and will see if there is
>> coming more. Please continue testing of RC1 and give us feedback.
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> Juergen
>>
>> On 01/08/14 07:48, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > I would like to inform that AOO 4.1.1 RC1 is available for testing. The
>> > RC is based on revision 1614049 of branch AOO410. The builds can be
>> > found as always under [1].
>> >
>> > An overview of fixed issues can be found under [2].
>> >
>> > With this release we will have 3 new languages Catalan (ca), Catalan
>> > (Valencia RACV, ca-XR) and Catalan (Valencia AVL, ca-XV). AOO 4.1.1 is
>> > now available in 41 languages where the UI is 100% translated. Many
>> > thanks to all volunteers
>> >
>> > Please help us to improve the quality and test the RC in detail. Any
>> > kind of feedback is welcome and highly appreciated.
>> >
>> > Kind regards
>> >
>> > Juergen
>> >
>> > [1]
>> >
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Development+Snapshot+Builds
>> > [2]
>> >
>> http://ci.apache.org/projects/openoffice/milestones/4.1.1-rc1-r1614049/AOO4.1.1_fixes.html
>> >
>>
>>
>> -
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: qa-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: qa-h...@openoffice.apache.org
>>
>>
>

Re: [RELEASE]: RC2 due to dictionary updates

[Pedro Lino]

Hi Juergen, all

I just uninstalled my Portuguese dictionary (version 14.4.1.1) just to test
the Extension updates (and Dictionaries in particular since that is the
reason for the new RC2).

Then I installed a previous version (13.1.1.2). When I pressed "Check for
Updates" I got a message that 14.4.1.1 was available. However the latest
official version on the Extensions site is 14.7.4.1 (from July 4th)
http://extensions.services.openoffice.org/en/project/european-portuguese-dictionaries

Why is this version not reported by the extensions update check?
Will version 14.7.4.1 be included in the forthcoming RC2?

Regards,
Pedro



On Tue, Aug 5, 2014 at 9:58 AM, Jürgen Schmidt 
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> maybe some of you wondered why I haven't started the vote on RC1 but the
> reason is quite simple. Just when the upload was nearly finished I got
> notification of available updates (thanks to Regina and Ariel) of
> dictionaries. We know this is very annoying when you install a new
> version and get update notification directly.
>
> That means we will definitely prepare a RC2 and if you have identified
> further critical and potential showstopper please report them asap.
>
> I plan to start the build later this week and will see if there is
> coming more. Please continue testing of RC1 and give us feedback.
>
> Thanks
>
> Juergen
>
> On 01/08/14 07:48, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I would like to inform that AOO 4.1.1 RC1 is available for testing. The
> > RC is based on revision 1614049 of branch AOO410. The builds can be
> > found as always under [1].
> >
> > An overview of fixed issues can be found under [2].
> >
> > With this release we will have 3 new languages Catalan (ca), Catalan
> > (Valencia RACV, ca-XR) and Catalan (Valencia AVL, ca-XV). AOO 4.1.1 is
> > now available in 41 languages where the UI is 100% translated. Many
> > thanks to all volunteers
> >
> > Please help us to improve the quality and test the RC in detail. Any
> > kind of feedback is welcome and highly appreciated.
> >
> > Kind regards
> >
> > Juergen
> >
> > [1]
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Development+Snapshot+Builds
> > [2]
> >
> http://ci.apache.org/projects/openoffice/milestones/4.1.1-rc1-r1614049/AOO4.1.1_fixes.html
> >
>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: qa-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: qa-h...@openoffice.apache.org
>
>

Re: Development progress on SVG-graphics

[Pedro Lino]

Hi Ariel

Thank you for the detailed instructions!
Yes, that does show what you get when you export to PDF and in the PNG
thumbnails..

Thanks!


On Sat, Aug 2, 2014 at 10:45 AM, Ariel Constenla-Haile 
wrote:

> On Sat, Aug 02, 2014 at 10:35:01AM +0100, Pedro Lino wrote:
> > Hi Armin, Regina, all
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 3:44 PM, Armin Le Grand 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Maybe, but more simple, please. It's enough to
> > > - insert SVG
> > > - convert to metafile (context menu)
> > > You can add me to CC immediately.
> > >
> > >
> > If you mean right click on the SVG, choose Save Graphics and then saving
> as
> > Enhanced Metafile or Windows Metafile, then the files are exported
> > correctly.
> >
> > That is not the problem
>
> You have to use Draw, not Writer, in order to find that option in the
> context menu.
>
> - New Draw document
> - Insert
> http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/archive/e/e2/20140516213145%21Google_Chrome_icon_%282011%29.svg
> - Select the graphic
> - Right-click to open the context menu
> - Select "Convert" - To Metafile" (or just select "Break")
>
> This is reproducible with the first version from
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Google_Chrome_icon_%282011%29.svg but
> not with the current one.
>
>
> Regards
> --
> Ariel Constenla-Haile
> La Plata, Argentina
>

Re: Development progress on SVG-graphics

[Pedro Lino]

Hi Armin, Regina, all


On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 3:44 PM, Armin Le Grand 
wrote:

> Maybe, but more simple, please. It's enough to
> - insert SVG
> - convert to metafile (context menu)
> You can add me to CC immediately.
>
>
If you mean right click on the SVG, choose Save Graphics and then saving as
Enhanced Metafile or Windows Metafile, then the files are exported
correctly.

That is not the problem

Re: Development progress on SVG-graphics

[Pedro Lino]

Hu Armin, Regina


On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 2:29 PM, Armin Le Grand 
wrote:

> Ho Pedro,
>
>
> On 01.08.2014 14:43, Regina Henschel wrote:
>
>> He Pedro,
>>
>> Pedro Lino schrieb:
>>
>>> Hi Regina
>>>
>>> I'm not sure if this is what you meant, but I reported this bug on LO a
>>> long time ago but it is also present in AOO.
>>>
>>> https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=71068
>>>
>>
>> No, the current improvements are for import of svg graphics and the
>> import seems to be correct in your case. I can see a normal Chrome logo. In
>> addition, the logo has been created with Inkscape and Inkscape has only
>> small support for CSS.
>>
>> BTW, the error is not in the pdf export, but in the conservation to
>> metafile.
>>
>
> Regina is right, it's a problem in conversion to metafile, probably
> clipping involved. Do we have a task in bugzilla for this?
>

The task is in LO's Bugzilla. Should I add a copy to AOO's Issuezilla?

Re: Development progress on SVG-graphics

[Pedro Lino]

Hi Regina

I'm not sure if this is what you meant, but I reported this bug on LO a
long time ago but it is also present in AOO.

https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=71068

Kind regards,
Pedro


On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 12:20 AM, Regina Henschel 
wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> perhaps you have noticed recently a lot of issues and commits regarding
> SVG. Styling a SVG-Graphic with CSS stylesheets is a great feature, but
> very complex. Thanks to Armins recent work, OpenOffice now understands the
> simple selectors 'id', 'class' and type in the style sheet element,
> understands the style attribute in addition to non-css presentation
> attributes, and handles their priority correctly. That covers most of the
> graphics you will use, for example from clip art galleries.
>
> These CSS-features are still missing:
> complex selectors with descendant, child and sibling relations
> selectors with attributes
> @import and @media
> !important
> pseudo classes like :lang or :hover
>
> The current state has been tested with a lot of special test files. But
> now we need "real-life" svg-graphics. So if you come across such graphics,
> please take an OpenOffice build from a buildbot (make sure it is a 4.2
> build and not a 4.1.1 build) and try it out; and when you encounter a
> problem, report it here.
>
> Kind regards
> Regina
>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: qa-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: qa-h...@openoffice.apache.org
>
>

Re: [RELEASE]: propose AOO 4.1.1 RC1 based on revision 1614049

[Pedro Lino]

Hi Juergen

In case no one has noticed, Nightly builds for the Windows OS have been
failing since July 22nd...
http://ci.apache.org/projects/openoffice/#win
Based on your previous answer I assume this is a Tinderbox problem only but
it would be worth to check/fix it?

Best regards,
Pedro


On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 4:31 PM, Jürgen Schmidt 
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I propose a first RC based on branch AOO410 revision 1614049.
>
> I will prepare the builds and hope to have them in place until Friday.
>
> Juergen
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: qa-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: qa-h...@openoffice.apache.org
>
>

Re: [QA][Test Report] Weekly Status Update as of 20140714

[Pedro Lino]

I already checked yesterday. It is fixed.
https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=125228#c13


On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 4:15 PM, Yuzhen Fan  wrote:

> Thanks Rekha and Pedro for your verification.
> Issue 125228 has been resolved by Oliver after reopen, could Pedro please
> check again?
>
>
> On Sat, Jul 19, 2014 at 10:13 PM, Pedro Lino  wrote:
>
> > Hi all
> >
> >
> > Can any Win 7 tester can take these 2 bugs as well to verify ,since its
> > > Windows 7- specific .
> > > https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=124825
> > >
> >
> > Checked. It is fixed.
> >
> >
> > > https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=122368
> > >
> >
> > Can't check. Don't use Netbeans
> >
> >
> > > > *Issue 124946* <https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=124946
> >
> > > > - Embedded
> > > > PNG Pictures replaced by "Read Error" box
> > >
> >
> > Checked. It is fixed.
> >
> >
> > >  > *Issue 125228* <
> https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=125228>
> > -
> > > > input
> > > > fields are no longer considered as cell values
> > >
> >
> > Not fixed in M2. Waiting for M3
> >
> >
> > >  > *Issue 124231* <
> https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=124231>
> > -
> > > > named
> > > > range with visibility condition can crash writer
> > >
> >
> > Not fixed in M2. Waiting for M3
> >
> > Regards,
> > Pedro
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Regards,
> Yu Zhen
>

Re: Windows BuildBot [was: Re: [RELEASE]: AOO 4.1.1 milestone 3, based on rev. 1612804]

[Pedro Lino]

Hi Oliver, Juergen, all

Thank you for the feedback. The build is working perfectly so I'm glad it
was such a simple problem. This seems to be a perfect candidate for 4.1.1 :)

Best regards,
Pedro

 I'm a little worried that the Windows Nightly based on the same build
>> failed
>> http://ci.apache.org/builders/aoo-win7/builds/99
>>
>>
> The logs from #99 are already overriden by logs from #100. The logs from
> #100 showed me that there seems to be "no space left on the device"
>
> Thus, it seems to be an error of build machine.
>

Re: [RELEASE]: AOO 4.1.1 milestone 3, based on rev. 1612804

[Pedro Lino]

Hi Juergen, all

Already installed and ran (and confirmed/tested previous bugs)
It is working perfectly (at least the en_US version)

I'm a little worried that the Windows Nightly based on the same build failed
http://ci.apache.org/builders/aoo-win7/builds/99

Is this bad news or it is not a problem?

Regards,
Pedro


On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 2:51 PM, Jürgen Schmidt 
wrote:

> > That means m3 will become a new revision. More info later ...
>
> ok the upload is nearly finished and the rebuild me is based on revision
> 1612804.
>
> Available as always under
>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Development+Snapshot+Builds
> when the upload is complete. try again later if you should have problems.
>

Re: Marked as duplicate of a TWELVE YEAR OLD bug

[Pedro Lino]

Hi Andrea, all

If you are worried that people will not see it, remember that all changes
> to any bugs are sent to a dedicated mailing list (issues) that most of the
> active developers follow (so, even if you don't see them explicitly in CC,
> they are informed via the list).
>

I'm glad to "hear" that. Thanks!

Regards,
Pedro

Re: Marked as duplicate of a TWELVE YEAR OLD bug

[Pedro Lino]

Hi Ariel, all

> However I think that closing a new bug with more (and recent) information
>  > is not a good idea (and is not the way to move this project forward)
>
> The bug is a duplicated, then why isn't a good idea to mark it as such?
> Besides, I already answered on bug 8812 that I don't see where is the
> more recent information in bug 125291, apart from the statement that the
> bug is solved in LO: there is no mention of LO bug reports, code
> commits, developers, etc.
>

I don't know how to use git, gerrit or any similar tools. From my
perspective informing that this has an Open Source solution in another
project seems to be a good pointer. I think that the idea for a community
is that each person contributes with whatever skills they have and that
doesn't make the contribution less important?


> "Unlimited number of rules for conditional formatting" seems a feature
> by Robert Dargaud, see
>
> http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/PATCH-conditional-formatting-with-an-unlimited-number-of-rules-td2777088.html
>

Personally I think this solution is quite elegant and as Robert comments on
the thread, he just did copy and paste of existing code, so I guess doing
the same with AOO code could not possibly be a copyright breach???



> "New conditional formats" is a feature by Markus Mohrhard. You or anyone
> interested is free to contacted them and ask them if they are willing to
> relicense their code under the ALv2 - I wouldn't be too optimistic, see
>
> http://mmohrhard.wordpress.com/2013/01/30/why-i-contribute-my-changes-to-libreoffice-and-wont-relicense-them-to-a-non-copyleft-license/
>

Yes, his position seems quite firm. But does his freedom remove the freedom
for someone else to create a similar code? If he uses a condition (this is
just an example, I'm not a developer) like "From ColourA to ColourB" does
this mean that nobody can use that line of code ever in any other software?
I don't think so...
In fact in order to make LO compatible with Excel he had to copy the ideas,
right? He had to create a conditional formatting with a gradient from A to
B. Who implemented that first? Is that not a copy?



> Also note that raising the importance has no effect on development has
> long as there is no developer to code the feature.
>

I am well aware of that fact. But since any project has to have some
directions maybe some developers focus on most requested/higher importance
features (instead of coding what they feel like)?

Regards,
Pedro
Faro, Portugal

Marked as duplicate of a TWELVE YEAR OLD bug

[Pedro Lino]

Hi all

Today I submitted this bug request
https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=125291

It was marked as a duplicate of
https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=8812

Although I agree that it is a duplicate, the original was so old that when
I searched for a similar bug request, it didn't even show up.

However I think that closing a new bug with more (and recent) information
is not a good idea (and is not the way to move this project forward)

I think that the number of comments and number of duplicates should
indicate that this is not an irrelevant feature. Shouldn't this be enough
to bump the IMPORTANCE?

Furthermore, after commenting I could notice that copies were sent to
vaughn_reid_...@elitemail.org, pedl...@gmail.com, ski...@alum.mit.edu,
polo8...@hotmail.com, o...@mbayer.de, jeff...@orange.fr, a.stu...@solcept.ch,
vyacheslav.se...@gmail.com, james.peter...@linuxjet.com,
julien.tou...@touche.fr.st, fun-st...@gmx.net, j...@vinksda.nl,
carsten.huet...@gmx.de, de_log...@openoffice.org, kamat...@gmail.com,
bart.hanss...@fedict.be, er...@rupp.de, mh...@gmx.net, gbpach...@gmail.com,
iss...@openoffice.apache.org, thomas.le...@gmail.com, philip-e...@orange.fr,
stgil...@openoffice.org, francesco.cat...@gmail.com, simon...@gmail.com,
g...@gmx.de, frank.schoenh...@gmx.de, guillaume.audi...@gmail.com,
dnelson_1...@yahoo.com

Are any of these people still involved in AOO?

Comments?

Pedro

Re: [RELEASE]: AOO 4.1.1 milestone 3, based on rev. 1611634

[Pedro Lino]

Hi Juergen, all

In the binaries download page it probably makes sense to update the table
so that the links read M3 instead of M1

I really think the Milestone installation files should include the build
number (in the same way that the nightlies do).
Maybe it would make sense to name them
Apache_OpenOffice_4.1.1_Win_x86_install_en-US-m3-r1611634.exe
 (i.e. re-use the last part of the milestone folder name)?
This would allow QA users to easily keep milestone files and check for
regressions...

Just my 2 cents.

Pedro


On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 5:03 PM, Jürgen Schmidt 
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> the translation deadline was last Friday and the milestone 3 build is
> underway.
>
> The m3 build is based on revision 1611634 from AOO410 branch. I have
> integrated 12 translation updates (including new languages). We have
> updates for de, he, km, lt, pl, pt, th, vi, zh-TW and new languages are
> ca, ca-XV and ca-XR.
>
> An overview of the fixed issues since AOO 4.1 can be found under
>
> http://ci.apache.org/projects/openoffice/milestones/4.1.1-m3-r1611634/AOO4.1.1_fixes.html
>
> The upload of the binaries builds is ongoing and can be found under
>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Development+Snapshot+Builds
>
> Happy testing and verifying of fixed issues. Feedback is welcome as
> reported issues or discussion on our d...@openoffice.apache.org mailing
> list.
>
> Juergen
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: qa-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: qa-h...@openoffice.apache.org
>
>

Re: [QA][Test Report] Weekly Status Update as of 20140714

[Pedro Lino]

Hi all


Can any Win 7 tester can take these 2 bugs as well to verify ,since its
> Windows 7- specific .
> https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=124825
>

Checked. It is fixed.


> https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=122368
>

Can't check. Don't use Netbeans


> > *Issue 124946* 
> > - Embedded
> > PNG Pictures replaced by "Read Error" box
>

Checked. It is fixed.


>  > *Issue 125228*  -
> > input
> > fields are no longer considered as cell values
>

Not fixed in M2. Waiting for M3


>  > *Issue 124231*  -
> > named
> > range with visibility condition can crash writer
>

Not fixed in M2. Waiting for M3

Regards,
Pedro

Please add current testing Version to Bugzilla

[Pedro Lino]

There is no option for marking a bug as Version 4.1.1 or 4.1.1dev
I'm using 4.2.0dev since it is the closest

Thanks!

Re: [QA][Test Report] Weekly Status Update as of 20140714

[Pedro Lino]

Hi Yuzhen

If there are any Win7 unassigned tests (especially Calc issues) you can
assign them to me. I can also use/install AOO in Portuguese if needed.
My Testlink ID is pedlino
Should I use build 1608452 (aka Milestone 2) or the latest Nightly from
http://ci.apache.org/projects/openoffice/#win ?

Best regards,
Pedro


On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 3:08 PM, Yuzhen Fan  wrote:

> Hi Alexandro, there is no unassigned test cases on Linux so far, I will let
> you know if any untested test cases need to balance from other Linux
> volunteers.  If you like, could you please check below bug on Linux? I have
> checked it on Windows and Mac, need check result on Linux. Thanks!
>
> *Issue 125111*  -
> Huge
> memory usage with docs which contain many graphics
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 7:03 PM, Alexandro Colorado  wrote:
>
> > No, Linux only.
> >
> > On 7/16/14, Greg Rivera  wrote:
> > > I have windows 8 as well. Please divide up the test cases between
> > > linux/windows 8 as you see fit on my end.
> > >
> > > Thanks!
> > >
> > >
> > > On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 9:54 PM, Yuzhen Fan 
> wrote:
> > >
> > >> To Greg and Kay,
> > >>
> > >> Please retest failed/blocked test case if new build is available,
> > current
> > >> build is 4.1.1 -- AOO411m2(Build:9771)  -  Rev. 1608452 as Kay
> > installed.
> > >> The frequency of snapshot build for testing is once a week(*Jürgen*,
> > >> please
> > >> correct me if I am wrong)
> > >>
> > >> To Greg and Alexandro, do you have Mac or Windows 8, so that I can
> > >> balance
> > >> some assigned but untested test cases on these platforms to you?
> Thanks!
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 3:36 AM, Kay Schenk 
> > wrote:
> > >>
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > On 07/15/2014 10:45 AM, Greg Rivera wrote:
> > >> > > Hi!
> > >> > >
> > >> > > I have finished testing the cases assigned to me. Please feel free
> > to
> > >> > > assign me more.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Also, do I have to let anyone know if test cases blocked or
> failed?
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Last, how often are there builds? Like when should I grab a new
> copy
> > >> > > of
> > >> > > 4.1.1 to test on?
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Please let me know :)
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > > On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 5:05 AM, Yuzhen Fan 
> > >> wrote:
> > >> > >
> > >> > >> Hi All,
> > >> > >> We start doing the AOO 4.1.1 Full Path Regression Test(FPR) on
> June
> > >> 25,
> > >> > >> here is the weekly update (7/8 - 7/14):
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >> *Test execution:*
> > >> > >> 1. We have assigned 176 text executions to about 19 volunteers,
> and
> > >> > >> completed about 42.6% in execution (69 test executions done). We
> > are
> > >> > behind
> > >> > >> schedule to finish feature FVT before Aug 8. The planned
> completion
> > >> > >> is
> > >> > 50%
> > >> > >> as of July 14.
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >> 2. From below test results distributed among Apps, we need to
> speed
> > >> > >> up
> > >> > the
> > >> > >> testing on Writer(because most of 4.1.1 resolved showstopper bugs
> > >> > >> are
> > >> > for
> > >> > >> Writer), and on Impress(because completed percentage is 30.88%
> > which
> > >> is
> > >> > >> lower than the average 42.6%)
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >> 3. From below test results distributed among platforms, we need
> to
> > >> > speed up
> > >> > >> the testing on Redhat Linux 64bit(because completed percentage is
> > >> 15.56%
> > >> > >> which is lower than the average 42.6%) and Mac(No progress on
> Mac!)
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >> Test CategoryTotalNot RunPassedFailedBlocked
> > >> > >> Completed [%]
> > >> > >> AOO Calc5323280256.60
> > >> > >> Fidelity5400120.00
> > >> > >> AOO Impress6847192030.88
> > >> > >> AOO Writer5027221946.00
> > >> > >> Total176101693342.60
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >> PlatformTotalNot RunPassedFailedBlocked
> > >>  Completed
> > >> > >> [%]
> > >> > >> MacOS X32320000.00
> > >> > >> Redhat Linux 32bit12381075.00
> > >> > >> Redhat Linux 64bit453870015.56
> > >> > >> Ubuntu Linux 64bit181131394.44
> > >> > >> Windows 73615210058.33
> > >> > >> Windows 8176101064.71
> > >> > >> Windows Server 2012166100062.50
> > >> > >> Total176101693342.60
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >> *Defect summary:*
> > >> > >> 1. We have verified 17 of 4.1.1 resolved showstopper bugs (Total
> 45
> > >> > >> as
> > >> > of
> > >> > >> July 14, increased 10 more since July 7. Backlog is 28 for
> function
> > >> > bugs)
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >>
> > >> >
> > >>
> >
> https://issues.apache.org/ooo/buglist.cgi?cmdtype=dorem&list_id=153261&namedcmd=4.1.1_release_blocker%2B%3F&remaction=run&sharer_id=249089
> > >> > >>
> > >> >

Re: instruction book?

[Pedro Lino]

You should check
http://www.odfauthors.org/

All books are free to download but you can order printed copies from LuLu
http://www.lulu.com/spotlight/opendocument

Even if some manuals refer LibreOffice they could help you since the
Sidebar is quite similar (it was "imported" from the OpenOffice code)

Hope this helps!


On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 2:18 AM, Melanie Lightfoot <
mlightfoo...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:

> I have downloaded open office apache about a year ago.  Use it almost
> everyday.  Thank you.
>
> What I need to know is:  is there an instruction book for Apache Open
> Office that I can buy, and what is the cost?
>
> I hate looking at the on screen instructions.  They are confusing to me.
>  I'm used to looking at a book.
>
> Thank you for your time

Re: Using dailies under Windows

[Pedro Lino]

Hi Andrea, all

That option was suggested before on this "thread". But that is exactly what
I want to avoid. Parallel dailies take up a lot of disk space and they
don't make any sense unless you are looking for a regression on a specific
date...
I'm requesting the exact opposite: that testers can install dailies as
their *only* production copy. I believe this is the most accurate use of
daily builds (unlike LibreOffice which forces dailies and Betas to a
*similar* installation to a LibreOfficeDev path and settings folder)

This allows to detect bugs in the real installation much earlier in
production.

Cheers,
Pedro


On Sat, Jun 21, 2014 at 10:15 PM, Andrea Pescetti 
wrote:

> On 12/06/2014 Pedro Lino wrote:
>
>> But this is not what I meant... Since AOO dailies install to the standard
>> path and use the default profile, a tester can use it as the main (and
>> only) installation
>>
>
> It's not very user friendly, but "msiexec /a" (or "setup /a") should allow
> you to install a Windows build where you wish. See
> https://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Run_OOo_versions_parallel
> and if it works for you with 4.x ask for a wiki account here on the list
> (or the dev list), so that you can update the page with your findings!
>
> Regards,
>   Andrea.
>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: qa-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: qa-h...@openoffice.apache.org
>
>

Re: Keeping the last successful Nightly?

[Pedro Lino]

Hi all

I'm afraid something is broken in the new Nightly script.

The script won't/didn't update the links at
http://ci.apache.org/projects/openoffice/#win so now even if build 1602869
is available at http://ci.apache.org/projects/openoffice/install/win/ the
link is still pointing at
http://ci.apache.org/projects/openoffice/install/win/Apache_OpenOffice_4.2.0_Win_x86_install_en-US_1602434.exe
which doesn't exist.

After a new Nightly is successfully compiled the Snapshots page needs to be
updated (if compiling fails then it keeps pointing at the last successful
build which is perfect)

Hope this is easy to fix.

Thanks,
Pedro



On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 9:24 AM, Pedro Lino  wrote:

> Hi Herbert, all
>
>  This means that all it takes to keep the previous version is to make sure
>>> it is not deleted if compiling a new one fails (i.e. deleting only after
>>> success instead of deleting before compile starts)
>>>
>>
>> I tested the change to accomplish this on our windows-nightly buildbot
>> over the weekend and everything looks fine, so I now updated all  our
>> buildbot targets accordingly. This should work from now on.
>>
>
> Thank you for listening to users and for adding the feature.
>
> Cheers,
> Pedro
>

Re: Keeping the last successful Nightly?

[Pedro Lino]

Hi Herbert, all

 This means that all it takes to keep the previous version is to make sure
>> it is not deleted if compiling a new one fails (i.e. deleting only after
>> success instead of deleting before compile starts)
>>
>
> I tested the change to accomplish this on our windows-nightly buildbot
> over the weekend and everything looks fine, so I now updated all  our
> buildbot targets accordingly. This should work from now on.
>

Thank you for listening to users and for adding the feature.

Cheers,
Pedro

Re: Keeping the last successful Nightly?

[Pedro Lino]

Hi Herbert, Jan, all

   Alternatively the name of the installer could be improved to
>>>
 Apache_OpenOffice_4.2.0_Win_x86_install_en-US_1600883.exe
 (i.e. with the revision number appended)
 and this would solve the problem of overwriting previous builds as well
 as
 allowing the tester to keep track of which installer is which...


>>> A great idea but I'm afraid I can't help with this. Volunteers are
>>> invited.
>>>
>>
> Rereading Pedro's request I saw that we already do this, e.g. our latest
> successful win-nightly build produced [1] three files with such names.
>
> [1] http://ci.apache.org/builders/aoo-win7/builds/50/steps/mv%
> 20install%20bits%20to%20web/logs/stdio



You are right. It's the extracted install folder that doesn't keep the
revision number. Sorry for the confusion.

This means that all it takes to keep the previous version is to make sure
it is not deleted if compiling a new one fails (i.e. deleting only after
success instead of deleting before compile starts)

Thanks!
Pedro

Keeping the last successful Nightly?

[Pedro Lino]

Hi all

Would it be possible to keep the last successful nightly instead of
deleting it?
Currently there is no nightly available for Windows because compiling
revision 1602143 failed.

While I think it makes perfect sense to have this table
http://ci.apache.org/projects/openoffice/ reporting success or failure, it
would be nice to add an extra line with Last Successful pointing to a
\Previous download folder?

I'm not a developer but the script that uploads the new Nightly could
possibly move the existing daily to a Previous sub-folder before uploading
the new build (or none if it fails) instead of simply deleting the contents
of the folder?

Alternatively the name of the installer could be improved to
Apache_OpenOffice_4.2.0_Win_x86_install_en-US_1600883.exe
(i.e. with the revision number appended)
and this would solve the problem of overwriting previous builds as well as
allowing the tester to keep track of which installer is which...

Thanks!
Pedro

Re: Using dailies under Windows

[Pedro Lino]

Hi Stuart

Thank you for the extensive instructions. Actually I could use Florian
Reisinger's SI GUI do to all of this... But I really don't want to have
several parallel install folders. Actually I think it doesn't makes sense
unless someone is looking for a particular regression between two daily
builds.

But this is not what I meant... Since AOO dailies install to the standard
path and use the default profile, a tester can use it as the main (and
only) installation (unlike LO dailies which install in separate folder and
forcibly create a separate profile)

The only step preventing from installing consecutive dailies is that the
installer detects that a version with the same release is installed. If the
build number could be taken into account, it would allow testers to easily
update to the latest nightly without having to uninstall first.

I'm asking the AOO devs to please consider this as a courtesy to people
testing dailies/nightlies.

Thanks,
Pedro


On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 8:50 PM, V Stuart Foote 
wrote:

> Pedro, *,
>
> Short of uninstalling and installing cleanly each time, these buildbot
>  nightly versions do not clean up after themselves.
>
> Using Microsoft's package installer -- msiexec.exe offers a reasonable
> work around of the /A Administrative, aka Server install, and running
> multiple versions in parallel.
>
> So with the nightly build downloaded, you can use any unzip program to
> extract the whole package into a folder.
>
> And then run the  Microsoft installer in  /A administrative mode.
>
> But, this does not "register" the the program as an application in the
> Windows registry. And, unless changed, the default user profile will
> conflict.  So, instead you can do a bit more tweaking of the /A
> installation, to be able to isolate each instance of it.
>
> That is done by installing to a unique location with at TARGETDIR flag,
> and then editing the bootstrap.ini to make the user profile relative to the
> installation.  E.g. the steps to install:
>
> 1.) Download a current nightly build,
> Apache_OpenOffice_4.2.0_Win_x86_install_en-US_1601656.exe
> 2.) unzip the package (rather than running it) into a folder--the name is
> not important, but good practice to not include spaces.
> 3.) open a command window (cmd.exe) and cd into the folder
> 4.) issue the command  "msiexec.exe /A openoffice420.msi /L*v
> AOO420_r1601656.log TARGETDIR="C:\AOO_420_r1601656"   -- note the quotes
> after the TARGETDIR=
> 5.) the Microsoft installer will perform the /A administrative install,
> writing a verbose log in the current folder, and creating a new directory
> C:\AOO_420_r1601656 -- you can review the log should there be any issues
> 6.) change directory into that new folder
> 7.) and from there change to the C:\AOO_420_r1601656\program folder
> 8.) make a backup of the bootstrap.ini file, and then edit the original
> 9.) locate the line that reads:
> UserInstallation=$SYSUSERCONFIG/OpenOffice/4
> 10.) delete the  "$SYSUSERCONFIG" and replace it with "$ORIGIN/.." this
> moves the  user configuration to a path relative to this installation, and
> other than the $SYSUSERCONFIG the OpenOffice/4 can be changed or left as
> is--personally I go with the suggested $ORIGIN/../Data/settings. Removing
> the SYSUSERCONFIG removes any conflict between versions.
> 11.) in the same C:\AOO_420_r1601656\program folder, any of the component
> launchers can be sent to the desktop to create a shortcut--but I usually
> only make one for the soffice.exe, and then from the desktop rename the
> shortcut to match the version -- AOO_420_r1601656 so I can keep track of it.
> 12.) launch the shortcut, the user profile and any
> registrymodifications.xcu configuration will be local to this /A install.
>
> When the next nightly build you'd like to work with is posted, simply
> repeat the process placing the install into a folder of its own.
>
> Stuart
>
>
>
>
>
> 
> From: Pedro Lino 
> Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2014 2:08 PM
> To: qa@openoffice.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Using dailies under Windows
>
> Hi Ouchka
>
> msiexec / a openoffice400.msi.
> >
>
> This is essentially what I needed ;)
>
> I still think it would be nice if the installer detected that the build is
> newer and allowed to install without any "tricks". This would be more user
> friendly ;)
>
> Merci bien!
>
> Kind regards,
> Pedro
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: qa-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: qa-h...@openoffice.apache.org
>
>

Re: Using dailies under Windows

[Pedro Lino]

Hi Ouchka

msiexec / a openoffice400.msi.
>

This is essentially what I needed ;)

I still think it would be nice if the installer detected that the build is
newer and allowed to install without any "tricks". This would be more user
friendly ;)

Merci bien!

Kind regards,
Pedro

Using dailies under Windows

[Pedro Lino]

Hi all

I'm currently running build AOO420m1(Build:9800)  -  Rev. 1596566 and
wanted to update to build 1600883 (under Windows XP Pro x86 en_US SP3).

Unfortunately the installer tells me that "The same version of this product
is already installed" and the only option is to Finish installation.

Isn't it possible to allow the installer to detect the build version or to
allow to install the same version of AOO as a Repair install?

Thanks,
Pedro

Re: Snapshot builds questions

[Pedro Lino]

Hi Stuart, all

Not exactly what I expected but it allows to see progress ;)

Thank you for the explanations. It is pretty much what I figured.

Good to know you are collaborating on this project too.

Cheers,
Pedro


On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 12:31 AM, V Stuart Foote wrote:

> @Pedro, *,
> 
> From: Pedro Lino
> Sent: Sunday, May 18, 2014 5:30 PM
> To: qa@openoffice.apache.org
> Subject: Snapshot builds questions
>
> >1) Is there a log with changes for the current daily/nightly build
> compared
> >to the latest official release (in this case 4.1.0)?
>
> Yes it is the SVN for Trunk, look at the Revision number: any Rev. after
> the AOO 4.1.0 spin (1589052) is a change.
> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/openoffice/trunk/main/?sortby=date#dirlist
>
> >2) Why is the latest Windows Snapshot Packages build older than 4.1.0?
>
> There has been  no reason to reconfigure and generate a snapshot of
> trunk--the Windows snapshot remains at rev 1585021.
>
> It takes time and effort to bundle and generate the full snapshot builds
> that include processing of pootle L110n language localizations. When
> needed, running the snapshot is voted by the dev community with PMC
> guidance.   The snapshot serves a different (or rather broader) function
> than nightly buildbot builds.
>
> Other than localization support, the nightly buildbots provide the install
> packages for  QA and testing purposes.  The Windows nightly builds are
> semi-automated--and absent an infrastructure or break in
> configuration--they run regularly.
>
> Currently the Windows nightly is  at rev. 1595498.
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: qa-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: qa-h...@openoffice.apache.org
>
>

Snapshot builds questions

[Pedro Lino]

Hi all

1) Is there a log with changes for the current daily/nightly build compared
to the latest official release (in this case 4.1.0)?

2) Why is the latest Windows Snapshot Packages build older than 4.1.0?

Thanks,
Pedro

Re: AOO Post 4.1 Test Starts! Call for volunteers!

[Pedro Lino]

I'm on Windows XP with Office 2003. If there is some specific bug I can
test, please let me know.


On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 7:53 AM, Alexandro Colorado  wrote:

> Hi Yuzhen, I finalize the tests, except for:
> Test Case ID AOOTest-229 :: Version : 1
>  Emphasis_Timing_Repeat_none
>
> I dont have MS Office 2003 so I couldnt test the ppt version of the edit.
>
> Regards.
>
> On 5/13/14, Yuzhen Fan  wrote:
> > Hi Alexandro,
> >
> > OpenMandriva is not listed in platform list related to AOO 4.1, then I
> have
> > assigned you 10 test cases on Redhat Linux 32bit, you can run them on
> your
> > OpenMandriva 32-bits rpm based OS. Please visit the  "AOO 4.1 FVT" test
> > plan in Testlink and look for your name.
> >
> > Please use the released AOO 4.1.0 as the testing build.
> >
> > [1] http://www.openoffice.org/download/
> > [2]
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+4.1+Release+Notes
> >
> >
> > On Wed, May 7, 2014 at 2:00 AM, Alexandro Colorado 
> wrote:
> >
> >> I can provide testing on my OpenMandriva 32-bits rpm based OS. Please
> >> asign me any test case, my uid is JZA
> >>
> >> On 5/6/14, Hitesh Jain  wrote:
> >> > Hi
> >> > I have created my Bugzilla account. Please add me to the qa-team group
> >> > in
> >> > Bugzilla.
> >> > Hitesh
> >> >
> >> >> On May 6, 2014, at 4:33 AM, Yuzhen Fan  wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> Hi Edwin,
> >> >>
> >> >> Thanks for your help all along, I have assigned you 17 manual test
> >> >> cases
> >> >> on
> >> >> Linux Deb 64 bit.
> >> >>
> >> >>> On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 6:31 PM, Edwin Sharp 
> >> wrote:
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Hi Yu Zhen
> >> >>> Please assign Linux Deb 64 bit and Win 7 manual cases, TestLink ID
> >> >>> elish.
> >> >>> Thanks,
> >> >>> Edwin
> >> >>>
> >>  On Mon, May 5, 2014, at 12:46, Yuzhen Fan wrote:
> >>  Hi All,
> >> 
> >>  We have released AOO 4.1 successfully on Apr 29 with voting, but we
> >>  still
> >>  have some test cases not completed during 4.1 stage, in order to
> >>  check
> >> >>> the
> >>  post 4.1 quality status, here comes the call for volunteers on AOO
> >> post
> >> >>> 4.1
> >>  testing.
> >> 
> >>  If you have interest and can help over the next few weeks, on Linux
> >> >>> Redhat
> >>  64bit, Linux Redhat 32bit, Linux Ubuntu 64bit, Mac 10.9, Windows 7
> >>  and
> >>  Windows 8, please send a note to the QA mailing list (
> >>  qa@openoffice.apache.org).   If you have a Testlink account[1]
> send
> >> >>> your ID
> >>  as well as what platform you can help test(if you haven't a
> Testlink
> >>  account, you can register one).   You should also get installation
> >> sets
> >>  from trunk [2] and report issues in Bugzilla [3].  You may want to
> >>  see
> >>  detail instructions in Test Guidence [4].
> >> 
> >>  [1] http://aootesting.adfinis-sygroup.org/index.php
> >>  [2] http://ci.apache.org/projects/openoffice/
> >>  [3] https://issues.apache.org/ooo/
> >>  [4]
> >> >>>
> >>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+4.1+Full+Regression+Test+Guidance
> >> 
> >>  Thanks!
> >>  --
> >>  Regards,
> >>  Yu Zhen
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> -
> >> >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: qa-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
> >> >>> For additional commands, e-mail: qa-h...@openoffice.apache.org
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> --
> >> >> Regards,
> >> >> Yu Zhen
> >> >
> >> > -
> >> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: qa-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
> >> > For additional commands, e-mail: qa-h...@openoffice.apache.org
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Alexandro Colorado
> >> Apache OpenOffice Contributor
> >> 882C 4389 3C27 E8DF 41B9  5C4C 1DB7 9D1C 7F4C 2614
> >>
> >> -
> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: qa-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
> >> For additional commands, e-mail: qa-h...@openoffice.apache.org
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > --
> > Regards,
> > Yu Zhen
> >
>
>
> --
> Alexandro Colorado
> Apache OpenOffice Contributor
> 882C 4389 3C27 E8DF 41B9  5C4C 1DB7 9D1C 7F4C 2614
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: qa-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: qa-h...@openoffice.apache.org
>
>

Re: [RESULT][VOTE]: Release Apache OpenOffice 4.1.0 (RC4)

[Pedro Lino]

Hi Juergen, all


That means the ballot
> closed successful to release the RC as AOO 4.1 Beta.
>

This was obviously a copy&paste mistake, what you meant was

> as Apache OpenOffice 4.1.0

One question: will there be a 4.0.1 to 4.1.0 msp patch?

Re: [RELEASE]: RC4 available

[Pedro Lino]

Hi Juergen, all

Running Windows XP Pro x86 SP3 en_US. Tested 4.0.1 > 4.1.0 both in en_US
and pt. Tested install with a clean system with en_US and pt.

All worked perfectly. Desktop icon, startup group and add/remove entry were
update as expected. Uninstalling removed desktop icon and add/remove entry
(there are still some empty folders left behind under
%ProgramFiles%\OpenOffice 4\ but OO\LO always did this...)

Looking forward to test the 4.0.1 to 4.1.0 patch.

Pedro


On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 4:03 PM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:

> On 4/25/14 3:27 PM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > the RC4 build (rev. 1589052) is available. The wiki [1] page is not
> > updated yet because I get always a proxy error ... Please pick up the
> > files directly from
> > http://ci.apache.org/projects/openoffice/milestones/4.1.0-rc4
>
> well slow progress on the wiki front, Oliver helped me and was able to
> make at least a few further changes ...
>
> A further problem is that *.dmg files are not recognized as binaries and
> are shown as text in the browser. Means you have to save the link.
>
> Juergen
>
> >
> > The wiki will be updated asap but nevertheless will I start the vote
> > today and let it run over the weekend until Monday.
> >
> >
> > Juergen
> >
> >
> > [1]
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Development+Snapshot+Builds
> >
>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: qa-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: qa-h...@openoffice.apache.org
>
>

Re: [RELEASE]: propose RC4 on revision 1587478

[Pedro Lino]

Hi Juergen

The RC files are intended to be the same as the final release files if
> the vote will be successful.


I am well aware of that. But it *is* possible to have an installer named
4.1.0RC4 and if it is accepted just rename the file. LibreOffice does that.

When the final RC is accepted, the file is simply renamed.

This allows to have RC1, RC2, etc clearly identified instead of having to
guess which RC you are downloading or if the server has a new version.

Just my 2 cents...


> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 10:37 AM, Jürgen Schmidt  >wrote:
> >
> >> The upload is still not possible ...
> >>
> >> I have checked a patch from Ariel related to issue 124701 that brings
> >> back some convenience for Linux and Mac user and I think it make sense
> >> to include this in AOO 4.1.
> >>
> >> Taking this into account and the not yet available RC4 I would like to
> >> propose a RC4 on revision 1589052 instead of 1587478.
> >>
> >> Juergen
> >>
> >>
> >> On 4/22/14 9:25 AM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
> >>>
> >>> short update, the builds are still not uploaded due to server problems.
> >>> Today is the first time that I get access on the server.
> >>>
> >>> I will keep you informed
> >>>
> >>> Juergen
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On 4/17/14 4:59 PM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
>  Hi,
> 
>  I would like to propose a new RC3 based on revision 1587478 of our
>  AOO410 release branch.
> 
>  Integrated fixe for
>  https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=124682
> 
>  The latest reported problems with digital signatures can be solved
> with
>  setting an additional environment variable on non windows platforms. A
>  wiki page will be created to describe in detail what the user have to
>  do. and the release notes will be updated as well. For now you can
> view
>  issue https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=124701 for some
> >> details.
> 
>  I would like to invite everybody with valid certificates to check and
>  test this feature in detail and give us feedback.
> 
>  Juergen
> 
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> -
> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: qa-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
> >> For additional commands, e-mail: qa-h...@openoffice.apache.org
> >>
> >>
> >
>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: qa-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: qa-h...@openoffice.apache.org
>
>

Re: [RELEASE]: propose RC4 on revision 1587478

[Pedro Lino]

The server seems to be slowly updating
http://ci.apache.org/projects/openoffice/milestones/4.1.0-rc/binaries/en-US/

Are these the RC4 builds? I think it's a bad option not to name the RCs
clearly. It is confusing that the file always has the same name (especially
because the creation date is not visible on the server...)




On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 10:37 AM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:

> The upload is still not possible ...
>
> I have checked a patch from Ariel related to issue 124701 that brings
> back some convenience for Linux and Mac user and I think it make sense
> to include this in AOO 4.1.
>
> Taking this into account and the not yet available RC4 I would like to
> propose a RC4 on revision 1589052 instead of 1587478.
>
> Juergen
>
>
> On 4/22/14 9:25 AM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
> >
> > short update, the builds are still not uploaded due to server problems.
> > Today is the first time that I get access on the server.
> >
> > I will keep you informed
> >
> > Juergen
> >
> >
> > On 4/17/14 4:59 PM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> I would like to propose a new RC3 based on revision 1587478 of our
> >> AOO410 release branch.
> >>
> >> Integrated fixe for
> >> https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=124682
> >>
> >> The latest reported problems with digital signatures can be solved with
> >> setting an additional environment variable on non windows platforms. A
> >> wiki page will be created to describe in detail what the user have to
> >> do. and the release notes will be updated as well. For now you can view
> >> issue https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=124701 for some
> details.
> >>
> >> I would like to invite everybody with valid certificates to check and
> >> test this feature in detail and give us feedback.
> >>
> >> Juergen
> >>
> >
>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: qa-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: qa-h...@openoffice.apache.org
>
>

Re: [RELEASE]: propose AOO 4.1.0 RC

[Pedro Lino]

Hi Jürgen, all

the question is why we got some showstoppers so

> late where the code is in the snapshots since last year. We make a beta
> and received no critical feedback and when we start RC builds we receive
> one showstopper one after another. We shave to think how we can  in the
> future.



I think you already answered your own question... The problem is that the
Beta installs to

> a different path... Actually for real testing it's worse than a
> daily/nigthly build.
>
 Sorry for the odd message. Gmail and tablet...


>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: qa-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: qa-h...@openoffice.apache.org
>
>

Re: Windows 4.1.0 installer does not remove the startup group icon(empty group) after uninstall

[Pedro Lino]

Hi Yuzhen, all

Bug still occurs in RC3. Maybe it will be fixed for 4.1.1? :)

In any case uninstalling using the standard Remove button (the one in
"Add/Remove programs") does work as expected, removing *almost* all traces
of AOO 4.1.0 (there are still some leftover empty folders in
%ProgramFiles%\OpenOffice but this is something that has always been
present in OOo\LO\AOO).

Well done devs ;)


On Fri, Apr 11, 2014 at 7:43 AM, Yuzhen Fan  wrote:

> Hi Oliver and all,
>
> It also happens on OOo 3.3.0 besides on AOO 3.4.1, AOO 4.0.0 and AOO 4.1.0
> RC2.
> There is an existing bug 13669[1] in Bugzilla which was closed as
> irreproducible in 2003, I reopen it with reproducible steps and confirmed
> versions above.
>
> [1] *Issue 13669*
>  - program
> group does not get removed after uninstall
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 6:38 PM, Yuzhen Fan  wrote:
>
> > Hi Oliver,
> >
> > It has same problem on AOO 3.4.1, AOO 4.0.0.
> >
> > I am downloading OOo 3.3.0, will check it when I get the installation
> > package.
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 3:51 PM, Oliver-Rainer Wittmann <
> > orwittm...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >>
> >> On 10.04.2014 02:42, Yuzhen Fan wrote:
> >>
> >>> Hi all,
> >>>
> >>> Here are the steps to reproduce this problem, I will check Bugzilla
> when
> >>> it
> >>> recovers to me:
> >>>
> >>> 1. Install 4.1.0 RC2 (clean install or upgrade install)
> >>> 2. Run the installation again and select Remove in Program Maintenance
> of
> >>> installation Wizard, and click Next (see screenshot post below)
> >>> 3. Check startup group after uninstall finish
> >>>
> >>> Problem: the startup group "OpenOffice 4.1.0" is empty(it is expected)
> >>> while the group icon still remains
> >>>
> >>>
> >> Could you please check former OpenOffice version (e.g.: OOo 3.3.0, AOO
> >> 3.4.0, AOO 4.0.0) as well?
> >>
> >> Thanks in advance,
> >> Oliver.
> >>
> >>  Notes: there is no such problem when uninstall AOO by Windows's
> >>> uninstaller
> >>> in Control Panel
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Empty startup group remains, should be removed
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >> -
> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
> >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > --
> > Regards,
> > Yu Zhen
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Regards,
> Yu Zhen
>

Re: Installation guide are asked to review and update when fix bug 124599

[Pedro Lino]

Sounds perfect. Adding options (instead of assuming and deciding for the
user) is always positive ;)

Please make sure that the fix in situation 2) is also included in the MSP


On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 5:55 AM, Yuzhen Fan  wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> Bug 124599 [2] is verified fixed in AOO 4.1.0 RC2, from current behaviors
> and comments provided in this bug, the "expected behaviors" for upgrade on
> Windows could be:
>
> 1. If the former version is 3.x, there will be a check box in Installation
> Wizard providing the option to keep or remove the former version
> - If select "Remove all older product versions", then 3.x will be removed
> and 4.x will be installed with 1 startup group, 1 desktop icon and 1 entry
> in the Add/Remove Programs list. This artifact is for 4.x
> - If de-select "Remove all older product versions", then 4.x will be
> installed with keeping 3.x, there will be 2 startup groups, 2 desktop icons
> and 2 entries in the Add/Remove Programs list. These artifacts are one
> suite for 3.x and the other suite for 4.x
>
> 2. If the former version is also 4.x, but older than current installing
> one(e.g. install 4.1.0 over 4.0.0), then the older one will be removed and
> the newer one will be installed with 1 startup group, 1 desktop icon and 1
> entry in the Add/Remove Programs list. This artifact is for the newer one.
>
> I think above behaviors are acceptable, I propose to update the
> installation instructions [1] according those. Any comments, or any
> objections?
>
> [1]
> http://www.openoffice.org/download/common/instructions.html#winoverview
> [2] Issue 124599 - Windows 4.1.0 installer does not recognize former
> versions correctly
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 12:37 AM, Kay Schenk  wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 2:39 AM, Yuzhen Fan  wrote:
> >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > The current installation instructions [1] (last updated on 2014-03-26)
> > does
> > > not differentiate the clean installation and upgrade installation for
> > > Windows, thus it does not state the option to keep or delete the old
> > > version for an upgrade installation.
> > >
> > > I propose development update the installation instructions [1] when
> > submit
> > > the fix to bug 124599 [2], to provide what is expected to see with
> > details
> > > as below:
> > >
> > > 1. Upgrade from old version to relative new version (e.g. from 3.3 to
> > > 3.4.1, from 3.4.1 to 4.1.0, from 4.0.0 to 4.1.0, etc)
> > > 2. Specify the different behavior/experience on all platforms (Windows,
> > > Linux and Mac) - I do not see problems in the current instructions on
> > Linux
> > > and Mac, but need confirmation
> > >
> > > That is essential, because for testers we need this as criteria for
> > > testing, and for end users we need this as instructions for guiding.
> > >
> >
> > You are right. We need to have our installations instructions accurate!
> > Commmitters can directly edit this page and commit. Others can submit
> > patches which we can review.  We could use help from all folks using our
> > installation binaries on this.
> >
> >
> > >
> > > [1]
> > >
> http://www.openoffice.org/download/common/instructions.html#winoverview
> > > [2] Issue 124599 - Windows 4.1.0 installer does not recognize former
> > > versions correctly
> > >
> > > --
> > > Regards,
> > > Yu Zhen
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> >
> -
> > MzK
> >
> > "Cats do not have to be shown how to have a good time,
> >  for they are unfailing ingenious in that respect."
> >-- James Mason
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Regards,
> Yu Zhen
>

Re: [VOTE]: Release Apache OpenOffice 4.1.0 (RC2)

[Pedro Lino]

Hi Jürgen, all

We found a new showstopper 124639 and have to prepare a new RC 3.
>
> But nevertheless we found several showstopper issues late in RC builds.
> Even in code that is in the product since December last year.
>
> I would like to invite all volunteers to test the current available RC2
> more intensive and report potential problems.
>

Does this mean the MSP won't be released for RC2?
Installing the full RC2 on top of 4.0.1 did work as expected but getting
the same result with a 26Mb update is much more interesting ;)

Pedro

Re: [RELEASE]: propose AOO 4.1.0 RC

[Pedro Lino]

Hi Yuzhen, all

Sorry for the delay but I was doing some more testing.

Here are my findings:

There is no problem updating from 4.0.0 to 4.0.1
The Startup Group, the desktop icon and the Add/Remove list are updated as
expected.

The problem only occurs when updating from 4.0.0 to 4.1.0 and from 4.0.1 to
4.1.0
There are 3 items that fail: there are 2 startup groups, there are 2
desktop icons and there are two entries in the Add/Remove Programs list.

Updating from 4.0.1 to 4.1.0 using the MS patch is a little better: there
is only one entry in the Add/Remove Programs list after updating (the 4.1.0
as expected). However there are still 2 desktop icons and 2 startup groups
(in this case the patch fails to set the OO icon as the group icon while
the full installer succeeds)

How do you want me to report all these in bugzilla? Or can you (or someone
in QA) add it to bugzilla and add me to CC so that I confirm it (and add
screenshots if needed)?

Regards,
Pedro


On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 8:49 AM, Yuzhen Fan  wrote:

> Hi Pedro,
>
> Could you please report it in bugzilla and help to confirm if it has the
> same problem when install 4.0.1 over an existing 4.0.0? Thanks!
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 3:13 PM, Pedro Lino  wrote:
>
> > Hi all
> >
> > First of all I would like to say that I'm *really* happy that update
> > patches have arrived for the Windows OS. I was almost sure that I would
> > never see this in a StarOffice derivative. Kudos to the AOO developers!
> >
> > I have installed scenario 2 (- Upgrade install 4.1.0 over an existing
> > 4.0.1) with en_US and PT under Windows XP Pro x86 SP3 en_US.
> >
> > Overall everything seems to be working perfectly but there is a small
> > quirk: the Startup Group for 4.0.1 is not removed so you end up with two
> > startup groups with different names pointing at the same folder.
> >
> > In addition the OpenOffice logo shows on the 4.0.1 group but not on the
> > 4.1.0.
> >
> > I know these are small cosmetic problems but could be confusing for
> users.
> >
> > I can create a bugzilla report if necessary.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Pedro
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 7:43 AM, Yuzhen Fan  wrote:
> >
> > > Thanks Steve for your verification on installation of new package on
> > en_US.
> > >
> > > From testing perspective:
> > > 1. The repackage changes nothing on functions, so previous and ongoing
> > > tests are still valid and there is no need for retesting.
> > > 2. But we need to retest the installation for below two typical
> scenarios
> > > on all language packages
> > > - Clean install 4.1.0 with no existing versions(e.g. 4.0.1)
> > > - Upgrade install 4.1.0 over an existing 4.0.1
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 2:09 PM, Steve Yin 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > No problem found.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 1:31 PM, Steve Yin 
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > It's great to hear that. I am going to try the new package now.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 12:31 PM, Jürgen Schmidt <
> > jogischm...@gmail.com
> > > > >wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >> On 4/3/14 6:06 PM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
> > > > >> > On 4/3/14 5:43 PM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
> > > > >> >> On 4/3/14 5:34 PM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
> > > > >> >>> ATTENTION: we have to repackage the windows builds, the vote
> > will
> > > > >> >>> continue because we change nothing, just repackage the install
> > > > >> packages
> > > > >> >>>
> > > > >> >>> I have built with the release=t flag to be prepared for future
> > > > patches
> > > > >> >>> that will allow us for example to upgrade a 4.1 or 4.2 to an
> > 4.3.
> > > > The
> > > > >> >>> whole mechanism is very complex and it seems that we have
> > > overseen a
> > > > >> >>> small detail. No big thing we just have to rebuild for now and
> > > have
> > > > to
> > > > >> >>> test the patch mechanism a little bit more.
> > > > >> >>>
> > > > >> >>> That means also that the msp have to be used even more
> careful.
> > > They
> > > > >> >>> work to upgrade a 4.0.1 to a 4.1 but the n

Re: [RELEASE]: propose AOO 4.1.0 RC

[Pedro Lino]

Hi Yuzhen

Is there a patch to update 4.0.0 to 4.0.1?
Or do you mean with the full installer?


On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 8:49 AM, Yuzhen Fan  wrote:

> Hi Pedro,
>
> Could you please report it in bugzilla and help to confirm if it has the
> same problem when install 4.0.1 over an existing 4.0.0? Thanks!
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 3:13 PM, Pedro Lino  wrote:
>
> > Hi all
> >
> > First of all I would like to say that I'm *really* happy that update
> > patches have arrived for the Windows OS. I was almost sure that I would
> > never see this in a StarOffice derivative. Kudos to the AOO developers!
> >
> > I have installed scenario 2 (- Upgrade install 4.1.0 over an existing
> > 4.0.1) with en_US and PT under Windows XP Pro x86 SP3 en_US.
> >
> > Overall everything seems to be working perfectly but there is a small
> > quirk: the Startup Group for 4.0.1 is not removed so you end up with two
> > startup groups with different names pointing at the same folder.
> >
> > In addition the OpenOffice logo shows on the 4.0.1 group but not on the
> > 4.1.0.
> >
> > I know these are small cosmetic problems but could be confusing for
> users.
> >
> > I can create a bugzilla report if necessary.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Pedro
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 7:43 AM, Yuzhen Fan  wrote:
> >
> > > Thanks Steve for your verification on installation of new package on
> > en_US.
> > >
> > > From testing perspective:
> > > 1. The repackage changes nothing on functions, so previous and ongoing
> > > tests are still valid and there is no need for retesting.
> > > 2. But we need to retest the installation for below two typical
> scenarios
> > > on all language packages
> > > - Clean install 4.1.0 with no existing versions(e.g. 4.0.1)
> > > - Upgrade install 4.1.0 over an existing 4.0.1
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 2:09 PM, Steve Yin 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > No problem found.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 1:31 PM, Steve Yin 
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > It's great to hear that. I am going to try the new package now.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 12:31 PM, Jürgen Schmidt <
> > jogischm...@gmail.com
> > > > >wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >> On 4/3/14 6:06 PM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
> > > > >> > On 4/3/14 5:43 PM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
> > > > >> >> On 4/3/14 5:34 PM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
> > > > >> >>> ATTENTION: we have to repackage the windows builds, the vote
> > will
> > > > >> >>> continue because we change nothing, just repackage the install
> > > > >> packages
> > > > >> >>>
> > > > >> >>> I have built with the release=t flag to be prepared for future
> > > > patches
> > > > >> >>> that will allow us for example to upgrade a 4.1 or 4.2 to an
> > 4.3.
> > > > The
> > > > >> >>> whole mechanism is very complex and it seems that we have
> > > overseen a
> > > > >> >>> small detail. No big thing we just have to rebuild for now and
> > > have
> > > > to
> > > > >> >>> test the patch mechanism a little bit more.
> > > > >> >>>
> > > > >> >>> That means also that the msp have to be used even more
> careful.
> > > They
> > > > >> >>> work to upgrade a 4.0.1 to a 4.1 but the next msp for a
> > potential
> > > > 4.2
> > > > >> or
> > > > >> >>> 4.1.1 can't be applied to a patched 4.0.1.
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >> The current problem is that the new full install sets can't be
> > > > >> installed
> > > > >> >> over an existing 4.0.1 this. Something that we don't want for
> now
> > > ;-)
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > I will delete the full install sets now to avoid further
> > confusion.
> > > > Stay
> > > > >> > tuned probably tomorrow the new builds are available.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Ok, Windows full install sets are replaced. I wish you all happy
&

Re: [RELEASE]: propose AOO 4.1.0 RC

[Pedro Lino]

Hi all

First of all I would like to say that I'm *really* happy that update
patches have arrived for the Windows OS. I was almost sure that I would
never see this in a StarOffice derivative. Kudos to the AOO developers!

I have installed scenario 2 (- Upgrade install 4.1.0 over an existing
4.0.1) with en_US and PT under Windows XP Pro x86 SP3 en_US.

Overall everything seems to be working perfectly but there is a small
quirk: the Startup Group for 4.0.1 is not removed so you end up with two
startup groups with different names pointing at the same folder.

In addition the OpenOffice logo shows on the 4.0.1 group but not on the
4.1.0.

I know these are small cosmetic problems but could be confusing for users.

I can create a bugzilla report if necessary.

Regards,
Pedro


On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 7:43 AM, Yuzhen Fan  wrote:

> Thanks Steve for your verification on installation of new package on en_US.
>
> From testing perspective:
> 1. The repackage changes nothing on functions, so previous and ongoing
> tests are still valid and there is no need for retesting.
> 2. But we need to retest the installation for below two typical scenarios
> on all language packages
> - Clean install 4.1.0 with no existing versions(e.g. 4.0.1)
> - Upgrade install 4.1.0 over an existing 4.0.1
>
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 2:09 PM, Steve Yin  wrote:
>
> > No problem found.
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 1:31 PM, Steve Yin 
> wrote:
> >
> > > It's great to hear that. I am going to try the new package now.
> > >
> > >
> > > On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 12:31 PM, Jürgen Schmidt  > >wrote:
> > >
> > >> On 4/3/14 6:06 PM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
> > >> > On 4/3/14 5:43 PM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
> > >> >> On 4/3/14 5:34 PM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
> > >> >>> ATTENTION: we have to repackage the windows builds, the vote will
> > >> >>> continue because we change nothing, just repackage the install
> > >> packages
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> I have built with the release=t flag to be prepared for future
> > patches
> > >> >>> that will allow us for example to upgrade a 4.1 or 4.2 to an 4.3.
> > The
> > >> >>> whole mechanism is very complex and it seems that we have
> overseen a
> > >> >>> small detail. No big thing we just have to rebuild for now and
> have
> > to
> > >> >>> test the patch mechanism a little bit more.
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> That means also that the msp have to be used even more careful.
> They
> > >> >>> work to upgrade a 4.0.1 to a 4.1 but the next msp for a potential
> > 4.2
> > >> or
> > >> >>> 4.1.1 can't be applied to a patched 4.0.1.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> The current problem is that the new full install sets can't be
> > >> installed
> > >> >> over an existing 4.0.1 this. Something that we don't want for now
> ;-)
> > >> >
> > >> > I will delete the full install sets now to avoid further confusion.
> > Stay
> > >> > tuned probably tomorrow the new builds are available.
> > >>
> > >> Ok, Windows full install sets are replaced. I wish you all happy
> testing
> > >> and voting and will be back on Monday.
> > >>
> > >> We have only repackaged that means the about dialog will contain the
> > >> same values as before.
> > >>
> > >> Juergen
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> >
> > >> > Juergen
> > >> >
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Juergen
> > >> >>
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> Juergen
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> On 4/2/14 3:16 PM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
> > >>  Hi,
> > >> 
> > >>  FOLLOW UP discussion please on the dev list!!!
> > >> 
> > >>  Last week I proposed a final schedule for our upcoming AOO 4.1
> > >> release.
> > >>  We are a little bit behind because the fact that we had to fix
> some
> > >>  further critical issues. Nevertheless I would like to propose a
> > >> first RC
> > >>  based on revision 1583666 from the AOO410 branch. We spend a lot
> of
> > >> time
> > >>  in preparing the RC in time and the upload is ongoing. The MacOS
> > and
> > >>  Windows versions are already available and the Linux upload is
> > still
> > >>  ongoing. But keep in mind the binaries are for convenience and
> the
> > >>  release relevant bits are the source release.
> > >> 
> > >>  The RC builds can be found as always under
> > >> 
> > >>
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Development+Snapshot+Builds
> > >> 
> > >>  An overview of the fixes issues, enhancements and tasks going
> into
> > >> this
> > >>  release can be found under
> > >> 
> > >>
> > http://people.apache.org/~jsc/milestones/4.1.0-rc/AOO4.1.0_RC_fixes.html
> .
> > >>  I invite all volunteers to help with the verification of the
> fixed
> > >>  issues. Especially the issues related to translation
> updates/fixes
> > >>  should be verified by native speakers.
> > >> 
> > >>  A related RAT scan can be found under
> > >> 
> > >>
> > http://people.apache.org/~jsc/milestones/4.1.0-rc/AOO4.1.0_RAT_Scan.html
> > >> 
> > >>  I have also prepared patches (msp) for Windows and for the
> >

Re: 4.1. Regressions

[Pedro Lino]

Hi all

I suggest that bugzilla should be improved to include two fields.
The first is filled by the reporter (can be someone very unexperienced) and
refers to the Version where the bug was observed.
A second field (which is not even visible in the first filling form) named
VersionFirst is automatically filled with the same version as Version and
can be refined by QA.

Just my 2 cents.
Pedro


On Sun, Mar 30, 2014 at 9:27 AM, Tal Daniel  wrote:

> [CCing QA, after just published to DEV]
>
> Oliver-Rainer Wittmann wrote (Mar 10):
>
> > Changing entry of Field Version from an older version to a newer one
> > should not happen.
> > When a user submits a new issue the Field Version should contain the
> > version on which the user observes the issue. Experienced community
> > members, primarily by QA people, should refine the value, but only in the
> > direction to older versions. Thus, finally the Field Version should
> > document the version in which the issue occurs first.
>
>
> I just saw this comment by Oliver, and as a reporter/user/translator, this
> is new to me.
> I'll update the guide with this instruction (
> https://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/QA/HowToFileIssue), and I hope Oliver
> won't mind me quoting him.
>
> Please review the guide, and add/edit, or add a note in the Discussion of
> the Wiki page.
> Thanks.
>

Re: Bugs already fixed in LibreOffice

[Pedro Lino]

Hi Rob, all

If you know the bug exists in AOO as well, then feel free to report it
> in BZ.   But it is worth checking, since there are many LO bugs that
> never existed in AOO.
>

Obviously ;)
Here is an example of a bug that exists in OO since 2005(!!!) and still
occurs in AOO 4.1.0 Beta (otherwise it wouldn't makes sense to report it...)
https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=59059
As you can see in the latest comment (#11), this is already fixed in LO
https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=43807


>  We cannot copy the source code of LO into AOO. But looking at bug
> reports and even developer comments on bug reports is fine.   So if a
> LO bug report says "LO crashes when doing Foo" and a developer later
> comments, "Fixed.  Issue was that X must be 1+1", then it is fine for
> us to confirm the bug exists in AOO and for a developer to try a
> similar fix. If there is only a single reasonable solution to a bug
> then it would be natural for the bug fixes to be quite similar.   But
> in general AOO developers should avoid looking at LO source code.
>
> Also, if there is a 3rd party patch attached to an issue, we could
> contact the author of the patch and ask if they agree to make it
> available to AOO as well, under the Apache License.   We've integrated
> several LO patches in this way.
>

Thank you for the clarification. I'm glad it works that way. It would be
absurd for a solution to prevent another product to be fixed as well.

Regards,
Pedro

Bugs already fixed in LibreOffice

[Pedro Lino]

Hi all

I have reported many bugs and some have already been solved in LibreOffice.
I'm wondering if it makes sense to report them *again* to the Apache
bugzilla...

However, since the LibreOffice license is not compatible with Apache, does
this mean that the solution used by LibreOffice can no longer be used?

E.g. if the solution for problem X is 1+1 then Apache must find a
workaround to reach the same result (something like (2*(1+1))/2 )???

What if there is a *single* solution to a problem (e.g. there should be a
comma where there is a semi comma by mistake)? Are the Apache developers
forbidden to use the same solution because someone already submitted a
patch to LibreOffice that does this?

Cheers,
Pedro

Re: AOO 4.1 Full Regression Test Starts! Call for volunteers!

[Pedro Lino]

Hi Rob

Thank you for the fast answer.
When you say "we focus this test" do you mean there will be others where XP
is considered?
Wouldn't it make sense to include it sooner than later?


On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 12:32 PM, Rob Weir  wrote:

> On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 8:16 AM, Pedro Lino  wrote:
> > Hi all
> >
> > I'm curious: does this mean Apache OpenOffice is dropping support for
> > Windows XP?
> >
>
> No.  It just means that we focus this test pass on the recent OS
> versions.  We still support Windows XP.
>
> -Rob
>
> > My PC runs Windows XP and  I know it will not be updated in the near
> future
> > (with the current economic situation this is simply NOT a priority)
> >
> > This is possibly the case for many PCs since XP is running on nearly 30%
> of
> > all PCs worlwide according to netmarketshare (
> >
> http://www.netmarketshare.com/operating-system-market-share.aspx?qprid=10&qpcustomb=&qpcustomd=0
> > )
> >
> > Is there an official position on support for Windows XP?
> >
> > Regards,
> > Pedro
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: qa-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: qa-h...@openoffice.apache.org
>
>

Re: AOO 4.1 Full Regression Test Starts! Call for volunteers!

[Pedro Lino]

Hi all

I'm curious: does this mean Apache OpenOffice is dropping support for
Windows XP?

My PC runs Windows XP and  I know it will not be updated in the near future
(with the current economic situation this is simply NOT a priority)

This is possibly the case for many PCs since XP is running on nearly 30% of
all PCs worlwide according to netmarketshare (
http://www.netmarketshare.com/operating-system-market-share.aspx?qprid=10&qpcustomb=&qpcustomd=0
)

Is there an official position on support for Windows XP?

Regards,
Pedro